Comment 2 for bug 186155

Aziz said:
;;; I don't know what you mean by "could be as good as the 1st". this looks correct to me.
> (define ([oops 123]) (values))
Unhandled exception
 Condition components:
   1. &who: define
   2. &message: "invalid syntax"
   3. &syntax:
       form: (define ((oops 123)) (values))
       subform: #f

I think the point was that "not an identifier" with a subform of "(oops 123)" would be a better error message for this case. From the user's perspective, I'd have to agree. "Invalid syntax" tells the user almost nothing about what is wrong.