On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:04 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

Am Fr., 10. Juli 2020 um 04:40 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe

> (1) Since exception->either is now a procedure, it doesn't belong in
> the "Syntax" section; I'd suggest the "Protocol Conversion" section.

I still hope that it comes back to the syntax section by my reasoning
in the other thread because it is more easily optimizable and much
more convenient to use this way.

A procedure it is and into the "Protocol Conversion" section it has gone, par fatwa du petit mufti.  (Etymological note: The two Arabic words are closely related, sharing the same consonantal root F-T-Y/W; a fatwa is an opinion, and a mufti is one who formally issues opinions.)

As for (2), I have restored `values->either` to its proper place.  I did an edit pass without properly checking with git diff that I had not damaged any other parts of the code.
> (3) How strictly should we read "A claw is either an identifier
> bound by an earlier claw..."?  Is it an error, for example, if an
> identifier appears which was bound outside of the -let* form, e.g.

(This all assumes that I am reading SRFI 2 correctly, which I might not be.)

Frankly, I do not really understand the purpose of the bare identifier at all.  An identifier is an expression, so if foo is bound by a previous claw, you can write the claw as foo or as (foo).  What's an extra pair of parens to a Lisper, after all?  So I think it was a mistake in SRFI 2 to insist on its being bound, and probably a mistake to allow a third case of claws at all.  Anyway, I think the documentation now matches.

I think It is morally an error in SRFI 2 to allow only bound
variables. We don't have to repeat it.

I think we do; too confusing otherwise.

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
The present impossibility of giving a scientific explanation is no proof
that there is no scientific explanation. The unexplained is not to be
identified with the unexplainable, and the strange and extraordinary
nature of a fact is not a justification for attributing it to powers
above nature.  --The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "telepathy" (1913)