define

[David Bartley <Bartley%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>]

There is clearly no chance of a consensus on the meaning of an
internal DEFINE.  It seems fair to let the current draft go through
without changes from the previous one, since that was the
understanding at Brandeis.

The only viable solutions for the future are to remove internal
DEFINEs entirely (as Guy suggests) or to persuade the Indiana folk to
choose a new name.  (I thought `DEFINE!' was appropriate--whatever
happened to it?)

I prefer the second option.  Now that Scheme systems are being broadly
distributed, it is important for us to show a united front.  I would
understand a user's anger if he could not find compatible
implementations for his range of machines.

I understand IU's feelings, but I think a compromise with DEFINE! or
DEF or whatever is in the same spirit as all of us have solved similar
inconsistencies in the past.

Regards,
David Bartley
-------