I still think there's a bug in the sample implementations of
SRFI 147 and/or 148, but the cause I hypothesized in my previous
message was bogus.  I was tracing the macro expansion in a REPL
where I had imported SRFI 148 but not SRFI 147.

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:

> Thanks for taking a thorough look at the sample implementations. I have a
> question (*) about your analysis.

My analysis was bogus.

> I don't understand the error yet. I am using a current nightly build of
> Larceny.

I think it's a bug in Larceny's macro expander.

I spent the day adding various tracing hacks to Larceny's macro
expander and analyzing the output, which usually led to adding
still more tracing output.  It will take me another hour or two
to figure out exactly what's going on, but I think it's related
to the semantics of literal matching in syntax-rules.

Will