Re: Code for cond*

[Po Lu]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> If it does _not_ come with such a plan, it's slightly better.  But then
>>> that begs the question: why add it?
>>
>> Because it will forever free us of such forms as:
>>
>>   (let (x y z)
>>     (cond ((eq (setq x ...) 'bar)
>>            yyy)
>>           ((setq y (... x))
>>            zzz)
>>           ...and so on
>>
>> This alone is too important a feature to be consigned to ELPA.
>
> May you elaborate how cond* helps simplifying the above example?

It will be possible for a clause to bind variables accessible in
subsequent ones, eliminating the let and setq forms.