On 03/09/17 at 07:48pm, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
Noam Postavsky <npostavs@users.sourceforge.net> 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.