Hi Tim,

> Mark H Weaver writes:
>> I agree that this example indicates a bug in Guile's 'let-values'
>> implementation (which was written by Andy Wingo in August 2009), but I
>> disagree that it should evaluate to '(9 2 (3) (4)).  I think that your
>> example should raise an error, because at the point where (set! a 9) is
>> found, neither of the 'a' variables are in scope.
>
> Oops, that `let` should have been a `let*` (Moving the first a into
> scope). But if you could verify that what I described is a bug I would
> like to propose a patch.

I agree that it's a bug, and that if you change 'let' to 'let*' in your
previous example, the result should be '(9 2 (3) (4)).

I took a quick look, and I believe the fix is simply to swap 'new-var'
and 'new-tmp' on line 95 of srfi-11.scm.  See the attached patch.  Does
it fix the problems you're seeing?

     Thanks,
       Mark