Re: Guile: What's wrong with this?

[Mike Gran]

> `define' merely makes a new reference to an existing object.  If you
> want a copy, you must explicitly ask for one (though this could be
> hidden by custom syntax).  It would not be desirable for the language to
> make copies automatically as part of the core `define' syntax.  For one
> thing, sometimes you don't want a copy.  Sometimes you want shared
> mutable objects.

It is curious that action of 'copy' really means the
action of 'create a copy with different properties'.
 
Shouldn't (string-copy "a") create another immutable string?
 
Likewise, shouldn't (substring "abc" 1) return an immutable substring?