Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter

Hi,

As I understand it, I have two choices when defining a function to
accept an arbitrary number of inputs: a single named parameter
that takes an argument list, or a &REST parameter taking an
arbitrary number of arguments. Christopher C. Stacy said as
much in an earlier thread [1]:

Your function could either take &REST ARGS, or require the caller
to do the consing and your function takes a single LIST-OF-ARGS.
In any case, once you have consed up a list of args that need to
be applied to a function, you will of course want to use APPLY.

In another thread [2], Steven E. Harris suggested that this might be
just a matter of style, but that he found the choice of idiom
difficult. In that same thread, Barry Margolin responded:

It's just a convenience feature that allows for terser
function calls. There's no semantic difference between:

(defun fun1 (&rest args) ...)
(fun1 ...)

and

(defun fun2 (args) ...)
(fun2 (list ...))

Aside from the interaction of &REST parameters with &KEY
parameters, this choice does seem to be a matter of taste.
However, to me, the difference is further blurred when
comparing the implementations of WITH-GENSYMS by Paul
Graham [3]

(defmacro with-gensyms (syms &body body)
`(let ,(mapcar #'(lambda (s)
`(,s (gensym)))
syms)
,@body))

and Peter Seibel [4]

(defmacro with-gensysms ((&rest names) &body body)
`(let ,(loop for n in names collect `(,n (gensysm)))
,@body))

Both require me to pass the the arguments in a list

(with-gensyms (foo bar baz)
...)

Is there any reason to write ((&rest names) ...) instead of
(syms ...) in this example?

Thanks in advance,

Mike

--
Michael J. Forster
Shared Logic Inc.

.