GNU bug report logs - #73853
Should and-let* become a synonym for when-let*?

Previous Next

Full log

Message #174 received at 73853 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 73853 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Subject: Re: bug#73853: Should and-let* become a synonym for when-let*?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:31:45 -0500

Michael Heerdegen [2025-01-18 01:26:44] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> > Right.  The Lisp convention of using `when' for pure control flow and
>> > `and' for returning values is a good aid to readability.
>> AFAIK this convention is followed only by some coders, so it doesn't
>> help readability because you can't rely on it.
> This is a weak argument of its own.  You can't rely on any convention
> being honored in the code.  That doesn't mean that it's a bad convention.

My argument is not that it's a bad convention.  Instead I'm arguing
that the supposed benefit of this convention doesn't really apply because
it's not obeyed widely enough.

>> Then again, we don't have such a "value returning vs not" duplication
>> and associated convention for `let`, `progn`, `lambda`,
>> `unwind-protect`, `catch`, `condition-case, ...
>>
>> The fact we have all three of if/when/and is not a good justification
>> for `and-let*`.
>
> if/when/let are a bit different than the constructs in your list because
> the values in conditionals have different semantics when interpreted as
> a conditional than as an value or object.  This is part of the reason.

I don't see the "different semantics" you're alluding to, I'm afraid.
Can you explain what you mean?

> I can't imagine that changing (if (and-let ...) ...) to (if (when-let
> ...) ...)

[ FWIW, in all of Emacs and (Non)GNU ELPA, I could find
  only one "(if (and-let* ...) ...)", the one in `help.el`  ]

> is something that makes the language more attractive,

It wouldn't change anything to the readability of the code, AFAICT.
In both cases the preceding `if` makes it immediately clear that we're
interested in the final return value but only in whether it's nil
or not.


        Stefan

Previous Next

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