Re: named let -> ???

[R. Kent Dybvig <dyb@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>]

> I briefly worried that if you introduced a name like reclet, that someone
> would eventually come asking for recletrec, but I guess it's clear that
> such a primitive would be meaningless. Phew...
> 
> Anyway, I agree with Pavel that special syntax is better than a new name
> in this case.

This reminds me of the name I almost suggested, "let+".  (The body of
the expression is executed at least once and possibly many times.)  I
also worried about names like "letrec+", and worse, "let*+" (or was
that "let+*"?).  If we could agree to flush "let*"...