[R6RS] new syntax srfi draft, reference implementation

[dyb at cs.indiana.edu]

> How about this:

Okay, I've updated the internal definition issue, but you're probably not
going to like the result.

The examples you give for internal define-syntax have nearly identical
internal define counterparts, and I have given both.  I give the internal
define versions first to show why r5rs's treatment is problematic even
given just r5rs constructs, and I go on to give the internal define-syntax
examples to show that the same problems arise with them.

Although I've tried to be as even handed as possible, I'm afraid you'll be
unhappy because the resulting text doesn't support the conclusion you
want, which is that flushing internal define-syntax will somehow eliminate
the need to specify the expansion algorithm.

Kent