|
From: | Mark Oteiza |
Subject: | bug#28254: 26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let* |
Date: | Sat, 2 Sep 2017 00:14:24 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) |
On 01/09/17 at 11:05pm, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
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 ;)
Ah yeah, I wish!
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.
Alright, I'll look at it.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |