[plt-scheme] Comments on an alternate syntax for let?

Neil Van Dyke wrote:

> Regarding whether the strictly unnecessary parentheses in "let" are a 
> good idea, I think they cue the human reader of the code to the 
> syntactic structure.  This isn't that useful when one is binding three 
> one-letter symbols to three one-digit values, but I think it *is* useful 
> when you start to get larger value expressions.
> 
> A related fun exercise is to come up with an elegant, 
> backwards-compatible extension to "let" to support multiple-values.
> 
> I'm not wholly satisfied with my own last attempt, and I'm not sure 
> supporting rest arguments for multiple-value "let" is even a good idea.
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/mail-archive/msg00012.html
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/mail-archive/msg00013.html

Yet another let-variant is let+ in etc.ss [haven't seen it in use
though]

http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/372/html/mzlib/mzlib-Z-H-19.html#node_chap_19

-- 
Jens Axel Søgaard