I think the system where identifiers of different "levels" are clearly separated is the cleanest one, but I share Keith's concern that the semantics of the system are expressed unclearly in the document. The "infiniteness" of the "reflective tower" (which is a concept that itself would need some clarification) seems to point towards the fact that every let-syntax form may have inner let-syntax forms whose definitions don't have anything to do with the definitions of the enclosing let-syntax. Adding a clarification like this, and some mention about what "levels" (or metalanguages) actually are, would IMO clarify the SRFI.
Panu -- personal contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +35841 5323835, +3589 85619369 work contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +35850 3678003 kotisivu (henkkoht): http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/ homepage (technical): http://sange.fi/~atehwa/
