[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Defun example should actually implement defun

---
This message is a formal comment which was submitted to formal-comment at r6rs.org, following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html
---
Submitter: John Cowan
Email address: cowan at ccil.org
Issue type: Defect
Priority: Trivial
Component:  Macro expansion
Report version: 5.93
Summary: Defun example should actually implement defun
The defun example in report section 8 should actually implement
(simplified) defun rather than a mere clone of define.
(lambda (x)
  (define-syntax defun
    (syntax-rules ()
      [(_ x a e) (define x (lambda a e))]))
  (defun even? (n) (or = n 0) (odd? (- n 1))))
etc.
-- 
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML      John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker       cowan at ccil.org
saying "No information items inside".           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Eve Maler