Am Fr., 28. Okt. 2022 um 20:53 Uhr schrieb Vincent Manis <xxxxxx@telus.net>:
>
> +1 on the principle. I am a little concerned about the name. Of course
> the name `unwind-protect' is entrenched in CL. But the name doesn't show
> the connection with Scheme's dynamic-wind. Would `dynamic-wind-once' be
> a better choice? -- vincent

Thanks for chiming in.

IMO, it is actually a good thing for the name to be quite different
from Scheme's dynamic-wind.  Dynamic-wind is built so that control can
leave and enter the THUNK several times and has the notion of a
BEFORE-THUNK.  The first is forbidden and the latter is not the case
for unwind-protect.  Moreover, unwind-protect is syntax, while
dynamic-wind-once would probably be expected to be a procedure as
well.

What do you think?