I think this SRFI could avoid a great deal of confusion and
implementation difficulty by specifying separate pattern-matching
binding forms, instead of extending Scheme's core forms.

As the Rationale notes, the match-lambda, match-let, etc. forms
described in Wright's original paper are well-known and widely
implemented.  Why not specify these forms, using Wright's extensive
specification as a basis, and describe any new extensions in terms
of them?

In addition, it says in the Rationale that "[the match-lambda, etc.]
forms usually do not take into account the ability of Scheme
procedures to return multiple values".  Wright's forms do, however;
he writes of match-let: "These forms are convenient for destructuring
the result of a function that returns multiple values" (p. 1)  I'd
suggest that the author amend the rationale to indicate how this
SRFI's approach to multiple values differs from that of Wright's
forms.

Regards,

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

"Invent and fit; have fits and reinvent!" --Alan J. Perlis