I think we should discard them. In fact, I don't think they make sense in SRFI 2 either. And I agree that SRFI 2 is a little strange, although the norms for SRFIs had not been set yet.
On 2020-07-16 14:06 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> I think they should reject empty bodies. What's the point of going through
> all that binding and then just returning something useless.
So should we discard all the SRFI 2 semantics relating to empty
body expressions? Currently, we have:
(maybe-let* ()) => (just unspecified)
(maybe-let* (claw)) => claw
These forms are not explicitly allowed by SRFI 189--they're all
and-let* artifacts (and you have to go through Oleg's formal semantics
to know that and-let* allows them). We could eliminate them from
the implementation (a significant simplification, too) without
changing the documnent.
Side note: SRFI 2 is definitely a little weird.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <email@example.com>
"Not all programming languages have a way to write definitions, but
most do. Those that do not are for wimps." --The Great Quux