I actually read it and I think that it's a good idea to include it as SRFI.
I think that this and a lot of small things in Scheme is only a limitation,
and implementers need to specifically cripple their implementation to be spec
compliant.

I think that best language is the one when everything that make sense just
works. I would love to see that this intuitive thing also work and is part of
SRFI. I would be able to include it in LIPS as already implemented, since in
most cases I didn't restrict any expression usage (I was even criticized
about it).

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:54:05 -0700
"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

> I encourage everyone to read Sergei's proposal below.  It's summer, and
> activity on the SRFI lists has been quiet, so I thought resending it as a
> reminder would be worthwhile.
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, 1:31 PM Sergei Egorov - esl at acm.org (via
> srfi-discuss list) <xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Schemers,
> >
> > Would you be interested in seeing the following SRFI to be submitted, or
> > is it something that is already beaten to death?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --Sergei
> >
> >
> > SRFI XXX:  Bodies in COND, CASE, WHEN, UNLESS, and DO
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > While most traditional Scheme constructs with implicit sequencing allow
> > internal definitions, some of them do not.
> > It is quite easy to extend the functionality of the remaining constructs
> > to allow internal definitions. Such an extension
> > will be fully backward-compatible while offering more convenience to those
> > who write and read Scheme code.
> >
> > Full text:
> >
> > https://malgil.com/esl/srfi/srfi-bodies.html
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Senior Front-End Developer
https://jcubic.pl/me
https://lips.js.org
https://koduj.org