Am Fr., 10. Juli 2020 um 04:40 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:

> (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.

> (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.
>
>     (let ((m (just 0)))
>       (maybe-let* (m) ...))
>
> The current implementation allows this, and I think this should
> work; it would also take a substantially more complex macro to
> catch identifiers not bound by earlier claws.  If identifiers
> which appear free in a -let* form are valid claws, the qualifying
> phrase "bound by an earlier claw" should be deleted or changed.

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

Marc