Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

[Linus Björnstam]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023, at 16:09, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Linus Björnstam <linus.bjornstam@veryfast.biz> skribis:
>
>
> Daniel pushed this as 764e3614b8c13de604399572a67d071621e9ca21 in
> ‘main’.  I had completely overlooked this thread but I wasn’t quite sure
> about it, so I did not include it in 3.0.9.
>
> The reason I’m hesitant is that, while I think it’s nice to be able to
> have local ‘define’ in these contexts, I’m wary of diverging from R5RS
> and R6RS.  Since it’s a one-way change (we won’t be able to revert it
> once people rely on it), I thought we’d rather be careful.

Andy gave a similar idea thumbs up in IRC some time ago. We could always make 
r6rs cond, case etc. use (begin ...). For that we could just re-use the example 
implementations from the r6rs appendix depending on license.

R5RS compatibility is a harder but to crack. Maybe a compat library like r6rs 
has?

/Linus