GNU bug report logs - #28254
26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let*

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
To: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza <at> udel.edu>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, 28254 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#28254: 26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let*
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 14:41:03 -0400

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza <at> udel.edu> wrote:
> On 02/09/17 at 07:25am, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
>>
>> Isn't there a problem with EXPR being a symbol S, which already has a
>> different meaning (bind S to nil)?  Though, this seems barely useful to
>> me.  Anyway, introducing (EXPR) would thus be backward incompatible.

What would be the point of binding S to nil? In the foo-let macros
that would be equivalent to just putting nil (if non-list EXPRs are
supported), no?

> This single tuple special case is troublesome IMO:
>
>  (if-let* (x) "dogs" "cats") => "cats"
>  (if-let* (x (y 2)) "dogs" "cats") => (void-function y)
>  (if-let* (x (y 1) (z 2)) "dogs" "cats") => "cats"
>
> I'm curious if this was brought up in the old discussion when this was
> implemented.

I think I'd be okay with dropping support for the S = (S nil) thing in
foo-let macros, so that all of the above would give (void-variable x).
Although perhaps the incompatibility with plain let would be annoying?
To be honest I hardly ever make use of S = (S nil) in plain let either
so it wouldn't hit me at all.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.