Al Petrofsky wrote:

> As long as implementors are tidying up this kind of thing, I suggest they
> also adopt the rule that in an r7rs syntax-rules form that specifies the
> identifier that will be interpreted in the rules as an ellipsis, it is an
> error if the same (bound-identifier=?) identifier is simultaneously
> specified to be interpreted as a literal.

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen responded:

> I'm wondering whether this is actually an error by the R7RS as written. It
> seems to be allowed [by R7RS section] 4.3.2.

Alex Shinn wrote:

> I agree, I don't think it's an error, and am not sure it should be.
> Even if not particularly useful it doesn't seem surprising.

The "not particularly useful" semantics will be supported if Larceny's
-r7strict options is specified.  With Larceny's -r7 and -r7r6 options,
an error will be signalled.

The nightly builds available this morning have that behavior, and can
be regarded as candidates for an official release of v1.3 sometime late
next week.  Please let me know of any problems you discover.

Will