[R6RS] multiple-value binding

[Michael Sperber]

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

> Right.  That's what I meant by "gumming up let".

If we're thinking about un-gumming LET, shouldn't we consider moving
out named LET into a separate form?  (Kent---in Bloomington, you
mentioned to me the primary reason why it's sitting in LET is that
someone didn't want to give up the name RECUR.  Is this
characterization correct?)

I'm sorry if this is too big a can of worms.  I sure often write
programs with named LET, but when I need to explain them to people
with little prior Scheme knowledge, I usually wish I hadn't.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla