NAMED-LET sounds good to me.

[ramsdell%linus@mitre-bedford.ARPA]

   Posted-Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:38:14 edt
   Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:38:14 edt
   From: hal@MURREN.AI.MIT.EDU (Hal Abelson)
   Reply-To: hal@zurich.ai.mit.edu


   With acknowledgement to Lewis Carroll's well-known distinctions--

   Since named let is already called named let, and we have already
   agreed to optionally keep the current syntax, which calls the name of
   named let a named form of let, why don't we just name it named-let, to
   minimize the confusion?

   -- Hal

This sounds quite sensible to me.  I am sold!  I vote for NAMED-LET.
John