:)
So here is a minimal example:
(define-syntax my-macro
(syntax-rules ()
((_ keyword proc)
(lambda/kw ((keyword))
(proc keyword)))))
The idea is that `(my-macro <name> <proc>)' evaluates to a procedure that takes a single keyword argument named <name> and calls to what <proc> evaluates with that keyword.
For example (using the new syntax proposal), `(call (my-macro foo list) /kw foo 1)' will evaluate to `'(1)'.
On the other hand, `(call (my-macro list list) /kw list 1)' will evaluate to `(1 1)' and thus an error.
If you want to repair that macro, note that
(define-syntax my-macro
(syntax-rules ()
((_ keyword proc)
(let ((p proc))
(lambda/kw ((keyword))
(p keyword)))))
is not a faithful correction. In contrast to the original version, `proc' will be only evaluated once and not every time the generated keyword procedure is called.
A faithful correction would be
(define-syntax my-macro
(syntax-rules ()
((_ keyword proc)
(let-syntax ((p (syntax-rules () ((p) proc))))
(lambda/kw ((keyword))
((p) keyword)))))
Here, thanks to hygiene of the inner macro, any variables in <proc> are free in the body of lambda/kw. As you can see it is possible to somehow work around the limitations of the original `lambda/kw' proposal but it is cumbersome. That such workarounds are necessary is, in my opinion, a clear sign the original `lambda/kw' proposal is missing a way to name the inserted identifiers differently than the keywords.