Functions that churn out lambdas - when?

I just wrote my own "repeated" implementation (SICP lecture 3x), and I thought the same could have been done with something of the format (repeated procedure item times), instead of dealing with another layer of abstraction by churning out a procedure that does the actual iteration ((repeated procedure times) item). At this point, choosing between both forms seems like an arbitrary flip of the coin - can anyone on /prog/ enlighten me?

>>12

I saw someone make a CL extension which let you use results from function in the CAR of the S-Expression, this would basically make the code (((repeated times) procedure) item) valid, and still keep it a LISP2.
Either the extension was limited (therefore rendered pointless by the commitee), or it introduced other limits in the language (incompatible with the rest design).

((foo bar) baz) is just syntactic sugar for me and I don't need it, because the occasions I do this are very rare.

but I don't understand their decision to forbid that case.
I don't know the answer. You can ask in #lisp on irc.freenode.org or in <news:comp.lang.lisp>.