Clarification on named let

[jinx@CHAMARTIN.AI.MIT.EDU (Guillermo J. Rozas)]

  I find the behavior of the community incomprehensible in its
  insistence on staying with a dreadful mistake.

Some people do not view it as a mistake, but rather as a natural
extension to the LET syntax.  You are trying to portray your
subjective arguments of elegance and taste as matters of rationality
and clarity, and they are not, they are purely matters of taste.  I
have no objection with the fact that you do not like the feature, and
I'm willing to consider alternative names (although none of the ones
mentioned so far are appealing), but PLEASE let's not start accusing
each other of irrationality.

BTW, it does not seem to me that the expansion for "named" LET is
considerably more complicated than the one for "normal" LET.  It seems
to me that all the (nonexistent) hair would appear in destructuring
and associating the bindings.  Maybe your comment about the expansion
is more of a comment on the tools you are using to write your macros.