Subject: Re: bug#15814: 24.3.50; Signal error on malformed bindings in `cl-symbol-macrolet' (patch)

From: Nathan Trapuzzano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 06:40:10 -0500

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> writes:

> Now that I think about it, maybe an alternative for the "let format
> checks" is to keep them in bytecomp.el and change cconv so that the
> problems are *preserved* (and hence later detected by bytecomp).

I thought the point of moving them to macroexp was so the checks happen
even when we're not compiling.