On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:45 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

Thanks for chiming in.  Do you have any favorite among the proposed names?

I prefer splicing-let-syntax, and the fact that it's already used in Racket is good too,
Actually, the R7RS adopted at least one silent (breaking?) change of the R6RS, namely the semantics of internal defines. In R5RS, these defines were explained through `letrec'

I think it is more correct to say that the difference between letrec and letrec* was not clearly understood at the time, and the spec allowed implementers to do it either way.  This is more or less what the "Letrec reloaded" paper says.

(Just for the record, this SRFI is not about any breaking change to R7RS, but to have a standardized name for an addition to R7RS, which is already implemented by many Schemes under different names.)

Absolutely.  I have added this SRFI to the Amber Docket.

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
    "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have
        to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done."
    "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do
        anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery."