Well, you've implemented let\* : (let* ((a 1) (b a)) (+ a b)) is equivalent to: ...

_emacsomancer_ · on Oct 2, 2020

> Well, you've implemented let* :

    (let* ((a 1) (b a)) (+ a b))

I think this should just be plain let.

If I do:

     (define-syntax let-
      (syntax-rules ()
        [(_ ((x e) ...) b1 b2 ...)
         ((lambda (x ...) b1 b2 ...) e ...)]))

And then try:

       (let- ((a 2) (b a)) (+ a b))

I get:

     ; a: undefined;
     ;  cannot reference an identifier before its definition
     ;   in module: top-level

bjoli · on Oct 2, 2020

I don't really understand if you are surprised by that or not. That is the expected behaviour of regular let. Parallel binding. let* is sequential.

_emacsomancer_ · on Oct 2, 2020

I'm not surprised by that. The parent suggested (or I thought that they did) that this was actually the definition for let* . And my point was to show that it does not behave like let* but rather like plain let.