Per Bothner wrote:

> >   (set! ((lambda (x) x) y) V)
>
> It is valid syntactically.  It expands to:
>         ((setter (lambda (x) x)) y V)
> But since (lambda (x) x) does not have a setter associated
> with it, you'd get a (run-time) error.

The SRFI says nothing whatsoever about errors of this sort.

> But this is allowed:
>
>         (set! ((if (random) car cdr) x) v)

But when Matthias asked whether the grammar was

  (set! exp exp)

you said "No - that would be ambiguous".  I took a guess as to what
that might mean, but you say my guess at something that would be
erroneous is "valid syntactically".  So now I know neither what the
comment about ambiguity refers to nor what the SRFI permits.

'shriram