[Larceny-users] Bug in syntax-rules expander (R6RS semantics changed?)

[William D Clinger]

Larceny's let-syntax conforms to the R5RS specification.
PLT's let-syntax implements a recommendation made at one
of the Scheme workshops some years ago: that let-syntax
not introduce a new scope.

The R6RS adopted the semantics implemented by PLT, and
it's a bug if Larceny doesn't support that semantics in
ERR5RS/R6RS modes.

Larceny's R5RS mode still supports the R5RS semantics,
however.  We can't change that without breaking some old
code.  I guess we could add an R5RS library that redefines
let-syntax, however.

Will