bug#28254: 26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let*

[npostavs]

Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu> writes:

>  (and-let* ((x ...)
>             (y ...)
>             ((x > y)))
>    ...)

I assume you meant (> x y), unless you've managed to somehow squeeze an
infix expression parser into that patch above ;)

> I didn't try writing it in the style of if-let*--perhaps if-let* could
> be extended and all three macros would learn (EXPR).

Yes, I think it's best if all foo-let* macros interpret the varlist in
the same way.