meaning of local define

[Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>]

    Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1986  16:45 EST
    From: CPH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU at XX.LCS.MIT.EDU

    Anyway, to get to the point: as I recall, local-DEFINE was included in
    the standard only because of S&ICP.  I would favor leaving the current
    description of its semantics, perhaps with a prominent note to that
    effect, and recommending LETREC for new code.

OK.  I don't care much about this question.  Since you and JINX are the
only people who have commented, I'll probably do as you say.  Leaving it
the way it is would simplify the language & documentation, I think, but
a clarification is in order, since it's implicit that define's are like
evaluable expressions, and the bodies of LAMBDA's etc. are evaluated
sequentially.  I also thought that local DEFINE's were supposed to be
"like top level ones," which are done sequentially; but the analogy
already breaks down because all local DEFINE's have to appear
contiguously at the front of the body.

My BNF, and the current RRRS, say that DEFINE's can't occur in BEGIN's;
does anyone have any problem with that?  If so, what should it mean?