Re: Code for cond*

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > `let*' is a Lisp function, and that is reflected in the syntax for using 
it.
  > > Calling this `let*' would be misleading,

  > I didn't suggest to call it `let*`.
  > `pcase-let` is not called `let` and neither is `cl-macrolet` :-)

What, then, would you suggest as a name instead of bind*?
I can't see where that finger is pointing.


  >     ((bind* (x foobar) y z (foo 5) a))

  > would collide with an actual `bind*` function or macro.

The idea is that there won't be any.

  > I do like such a uniform rule.  I just think it needs to be more visible
  > than just the absence of something before the next close paren.

Would you like to show me more suggestions?  That way I could see if I like
any of them.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)