Retraction

[David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>]

    Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 21:02 EST
    From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
    Subject: Defun inside Let

    Let me put it this way.  It's easy enough to say that (LET ... (DEFUN
    FOO ...)) has the same effect as (LET ... (SETF (SYMBOL-FUNCTION 'FOO)
    #'(LAMBDA ...))), and in fact I know of no implementation where that is
    not already true.

As a couple of people have pointed out to me, they do not have the same
effect in Symbolics Release 6.1.  I apologize for leaping without
looking.  I assumed that because it worked in the newer software I was
running, I didn't need to check whether it worked in the released
version.  I'll try to be more careful about opening my mouth in the future.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that we all agree that those two
forms are equivalent.  The questions are (less important) does Common Lisp
say that these are legal forms, and (much more important) does Common Lisp
presently contain everything needed to effectively make use of that
programming technique.