[R6RS] New draft of arithmetic SRFI

[Michael Sperber]

As discussed in Tallinn, it would be nice if people expressed an
opinion on special multiple-value-binding syntax.  (At least those who
haven't.)  The options on the table so far are (I believe):

1. SRFI 8
   http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-8/

2. SRFI 11
   http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-11/

3. SRFI 71, or some subset thereof
   http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/

4. the proposal by Kent
   http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/private/r6rs/2005-August/000824.html

It'd be nice if we could resolve this soonish, as it has potential
bearing on the record syntax.

I'm personally fine with either of these, but prefer those that simply
extend LET, LET* and LETREC* (i.e. #3 and #4) rather than introduce
new kinds of forms.  (I'd also prefer SRFI 11 over SRFI 8.)  I often
have this:

(let* ((a ...)
       (b ...))
  (let-values (((c d e) ...))
    (let* ((f ...)
           (g ...))
      ...)))

and dislike this:

(let*-values (((a) ...)
              ((b) ...)
              ((c d e) ...)
              ((f) ...)
              ((g) ...))
  ...)

which has lots of parens and poor continuity.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla