[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Mark Oteiza
Subject: bug#28254: 26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let*
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:48:48 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02)

On 03/09/17 at 06:39pm, Mark Oteiza wrote:
On 03/09/17 at 07:48pm, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:
Even if an `if-let' form is the result of a macro expansion, the S = (S
nil) case isn't of any value.  So I see no reasons to not drop support
for it.

If I'm understanding correctly,  it is being agreed that

(let ((x 1)) (and-let* (x) x)) ;; => 1

because the macro expands to

(let* ((x (and t x)))
  (if x x))

The following patch achieves this, though it breaks some existing subr-x
tests which I haven't yet looked at carefully.

The tests fail precisely because of this change--so I'm not bothered
aside from having to adjust the test to account for it.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]