>It seems to me that the three kinds of expressions proposed are
>completely orthogonal.  Then why should they all be put in one SRFI?
>It forces an implementation to implement all 3 to be able to claim
>(cond-expand (srfi-11 'yes)).  An implementor might just implement
>case-lambda, and a user might just be interested in case-lambda, but
>they can't convey this information to each other through cond-expand.
>
>Marc

You're right, and I had some doubts about this myself.  I will consider
splitting the SRFI up.

--lars