Sounds like a good idea, and I am all for it.  I've added and pushed a description of either-guard.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:55 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> wrote:
On 2020-07-10 18:33 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
> xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
> It is unfortunate that this isn't being resolved by some rationale
> > argument. You gave an argument about iterating over a list of thunks
> > but that has been defeated.
>
> That was an example rather than an argument.  But what can I say?  You
> believe your view is better, I believe mine is, and no one else is saying
> anything.  Since it's my SRFI, I end up making the final decision.

Why not have both, the macro and the procedure?

The example of call-with-values suggests that, if people use a
thunked procedure frequently, someone will eventually add a dethunked
form.  Since such a form has been proposed and uses basically
the same implementation as the procedure, we could save someone a
future SRFI and add it now.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is
about telescopes." --pseudo-Dijkstra