Re: let-values, and-let* no variables

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm contemplating the way "begin" is used for the body of let-values
> and and-let* with no bindings.  It has the unhappy effect of allowing
> what is visually an internal define to go out into the containing
> environment, eg.

Uhh, intuitively I'd say that this is wrong behavior.  Maybe you
should ask on comp.lang.scheme.

> I guess nobody would write an empty and-let* or let-values
> deliberately, but it could arise out of a macro.  I'm thinking to put
> some words of caution in the manual, to make it clear the body isn't
> the same as a plain "let" or "let*".

That would be good, even if we 'fix' our implementation to behave
differently.