Subject: bug#56974: 29.0.50; Missing documentation for former subr-x macros

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:01:53 +0200

Philip Kaludercic <[email-masked]> writes:

> +During complex computations that might at any step, one can combine a

Missing a word or two here?

> +For the sake of backwards compatibility, it is possible to write a
> +single binding without a binding list:

I'm not sure we need to document this bit.

> +@defmac if-let* (bindings@dots) then &rest else
> +@code{if-let*} is mostly equivalent to @code{if-let}, with the
> +exception that the legacy @code{(if (@var{var} (test)) foo bar)}
> +syntax is not permitted.
> +@end defmac

So I think it's sufficient to document only the *-less variant.