On 2020-07-16 22:39 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Am Do., 16. Juli 2020 um 20:14 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
> >
> > I think they should reject empty bodies. What's the point of going through all that binding and then just returning something useless.
>
> If the and-let* body of SRFI 2 is empty, the value of the form is the
> value of the last claw, which makes perfect sense.
>
> This has an obvious generalization to SRFI 189's maybe-let*.

The sample implementation (which is based on your syntax-rules
implementation of and-let*) adopts this generalization.  But the
SRFI says nothing about it, which makes it effectively an undocumented
extension.

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

"Never do programs contain so few bugs as when no debugging tools
are available." --Niklaus Wirth