Re: Code for cond*

[Ihor Radchenko]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

>>>   (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.

The problem is that cond* is doing much more than just introducing
fall-through bindings.

If we just need fall-through bindings, I'd argue that we should better
introduce them separately; maybe even as a part of the normal `cond'.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>