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 Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:29 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> wrote:
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  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"Not all programming languages have a way to write definitions, but
most do.  Those that do not are for wimps."  --The Great Quux