Update documentation for mixed definitions and expressions

* NEWS: Update.
* doc/ref/api-binding.texi (Internal Definitions): Update to mention
  that mixed definitions and expressions are allowed.
* doc/ref/scheme-ideas.texi (Creating a Procedure):
  (Lambda Alternatives): Update documentation to avoid implying that
  bodies are only expressions.

NEWS

@@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ Changes in alpha 2.9.4 (since alpha 2.9.3):
 
 * Notable changes
 
-** Improved compilation of `sqrt' and `abs'
+** Improved compilation of many floating-point primitives
 
-Heavy floating-point computations that use `sqrt' and `abs' will be
+Heavy floating-point computations that use `sqrt', `abs', `floor`,
+`ceiling`, `sin`, `cos`, `tan`, `asin`, `acos`, and `atan` will be
 faster, as the compiler can unbox inexact rationals (flonums) in more
 cases.
 
@@ -24,6 +25,25 @@ Ghuloum and Dybvig's "Fixing Letrec (reloaded)" paper.  This change
 makes internal `define' just as efficient as `let', `let*', `letrec',
 and similar.
 
+** Interleaved internal definitions and expressions allowed
+
+It used to be that internal definitions had to precede all expressions
+in their bodies; this restriction was relaxed in Guile 3.0.  If an
+expression precedes an internal definition, it is treated as if it were
+a definition of an unreferenced variable.  This improves the readability
+of Guile programs, as it used to be that program indentation tended to
+increase needlessly to allow nested `let' and `letrec' to re-establish
+definition contexts after initial expressions, for example for
+type-checks on procedure arguments.
+
+** Optimization of top-level bindings within a compilation unit
+
+At optimization level 2 and above, Guile's compiler is now allowed to
+inline definitions within a compilation unit.  See "Declarative Modules"
+in the manual, for full details.  This change can improve the
+performance of programs with many small top-level definitions by quite a
+bit!
+
 
 
 Changes in alpha 2.9.x (since the stable 2.2 series):

doc/ref/api-binding.texi

@@ -249,9 +249,9 @@ enclosing form.  Let us examine the following example.
 
 @lisp
 (let ((frumble "froz"))
-   (define banana (lambda () (apple 'peach)))
-   (define apple (lambda (x) x))
-   (banana))
+  (define banana (lambda () (apple 'peach)))
+  (define apple (lambda (x) x))
+  (banana))
 @result{}
 peach
 @end lisp
@@ -281,8 +281,26 @@ is equivalent to
     (+ a b)))
 @end lisp
 
-Internal definitions are only allowed at the beginning of the body of an
-enclosing expression.  They may not be mixed with other expressions.
+Internal definitions may be mixed with non-definition expressions.  If
+an expression precedes a definition, it is treated as if it were a
+definition of an unreferenced variable.  So this:
+
+@lisp
+(let ()
+  (define a 1)
+  (foo)
+  (define b 2)
+  (+ a b))
+@end lisp
+
+@noindent
+is equivalent to
+
+@lisp
+(let ()
+  (letrec* ((a 1) (_ (begin (foo) #f)) (b 2))
+    (+ a b)))
+@end lisp
 
 Another noteworthy difference to top level definitions is that within
 one group of internal definitions all variable names must be distinct.
@@ -305,7 +323,9 @@ following case:
 
 @noindent
 Guile decided to follow the R6RS in this regard, and now expands
-internal definitions using @code{letrec*}.
+internal definitions using @code{letrec*}.  Relatedly, it used to be
+that internal definitions had to precede all expressions in the body;
+this restriction was relaxed in Guile 3.0.
 
 
 @node Binding Reflection

doc/ref/scheme-ideas.texi

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 @c -*-texinfo-*-
 @c This is part of the GNU Guile Reference Manual.
-@c Copyright (C)  1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012
+@c Copyright (C)  1996-1997, 2000-2005, 2012, 2019
 @c   Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 @c See the file guile.texi for copying conditions.
 
@@ -354,18 +354,17 @@ this, you can use the famous @code{lambda} syntax.
 For example, the value of the following Scheme expression
 
 @lisp
-(lambda (name address) @var{expression} @dots{})
+(lambda (name address) @var{body} @dots{})
 @end lisp
 
 @noindent
-is a newly created procedure that takes two arguments:
-@code{name} and @code{address}.  The behaviour of the
-new procedure is determined by the sequence of @var{expression}s in the
-@dfn{body} of the procedure definition.  (Typically, these
-@var{expression}s would use the arguments in some way, or else there
-wouldn't be any point in giving them to the procedure.)  When invoked,
-the new procedure returns a value that is the value of the last
-@var{expression} in the procedure body.
+is a newly created procedure that takes two arguments:  @code{name} and
+@code{address}.  The behaviour of the new procedure is determined by the
+sequence of expressions and definitions in the @var{body} of the
+procedure definition.  (Typically, @var{body} would use the arguments in
+some way, or else there wouldn't be any point in giving them to the
+procedure.)  When invoked, the new procedure returns a value that is the
+value of the last expression in the @var{body}.
 
 To make things more concrete, let's suppose that the two arguments are
 both strings, and that the purpose of this procedure is to form a
@@ -433,7 +432,7 @@ A @code{define} expression of the form
 
 @lisp
 (define (@var{name} [@var{arg1} [@var{arg2} @dots{}]])
-  @var{expression} @dots{})
+  @var{body} @dots{})
 @end lisp
 
 @noindent
@@ -442,7 +441,7 @@ is exactly equivalent to the longer form
 @lisp
 (define @var{name}
   (lambda ([@var{arg1} [@var{arg2} @dots{}]])
-    @var{expression} @dots{}))
+    @var{body} @dots{}))
 @end lisp
 
 So, for example, the definition of @code{make-combined-string} in the
@@ -459,18 +458,18 @@ of the @code{lambda} expression, which create a procedure that can
 accept a variable number of arguments:
 
 @lisp
-(lambda (@var{arg1} @dots{} . @var{args}) @var{expression} @dots{})
+(lambda (@var{arg1} @dots{} . @var{args}) @var{body} @dots{})
 
-(lambda @var{args} @var{expression} @dots{})
+(lambda @var{args} @var{body} @dots{})
 @end lisp
 
 @noindent
 The corresponding forms of the alternative @code{define} syntax are:
 
 @lisp
-(define (@var{name} @var{arg1} @dots{} . @var{args}) @var{expression} @dots{})
+(define (@var{name} @var{arg1} @dots{} . @var{args}) @var{body} @dots{})
 
-(define (@var{name} . @var{args}) @var{expression} @dots{})
+(define (@var{name} . @var{args}) @var{body} @dots{})
 @end lisp
 
 @noindent
@@ -479,7 +478,7 @@ For details on how these forms work, see @xref{Lambda}.
 Prior to Guile 2.0, Guile provided an extension to @code{define} syntax
 that allowed you to nest the previous extension up to an arbitrary
 depth. These are no longer provided by default, and instead have been
-moved to @ref{Curried Definitions}
+moved to @ref{Curried Definitions}.
 
 (It could be argued that the alternative @code{define} forms are rather
 confusing, especially for newcomers to the Scheme language, as they hide