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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza <at> udel.edu>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 28254 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: bug#28254: 26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let*
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:09:47 -0400

On 12/09/17 at 02:39pm, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza <at> udel.edu> writes:
> 
> > Any comments?
> 
> Some notes on the documentation of `if-let*' after your patch:
> 
> |   "Bind variables according to VARLIST and eval THEN or ELSE.
> | Each binding is evaluated in turn with `let*',
> 
> Maybe comparing with `let*' is confusing after the change, because not
> all bindings must look like (SYMBOL EXPRESSION) any more.  I think when
> we just remove the two words "with `let*'", the documentation is still
> fine.

I agree, thanks.

> | and evaluation stops if a binding value is nil.  If all are non-nil,
> | the value of THEN is returned, or the last form in ELSE is returned.
> 
> Not really related to your change, but: Maybe we should additionally say
> that THEN can refer to the bindings made in the VARLIST, but ELSE to
> none, not even to those that resulted in non-nil values before
> "failing".

That's not true though--you can refer to the bindings in either branch:

    (if-let* ((x 2) (y nil)) x (list x y))

 => (let* ((x (and t 2)) (y (and x nil))) (if y x (list x y)))

> | Each element of VARLIST is a symbol (which is bound to nil) [...]
> 
> Did we agree that we drop this useless case?

Ah yes, this is no longer the case in this patch.  Good catch, thank
you.

Previous Next

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