Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

[Linus Björnstam]

Hi!

Well, the point of the change is to make it so that things other than 
expressions are allowed. I change it to say @var{body}, and then later clarify 
that @var{test} is an arbitrary expression and @var{body} is a lambda-like 
body. 

Which when reading it now sounds... not very good. 

Would "is like the body of a lambda" be a better wording? That would imply that 
at least one expression is required. English is very much not my first 
language, and documentation changes are the ones that I fear the most...

best regards
  Linus Björnstam

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, at 08:25, lloda wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> I don't understand the following change since at least one expression 
> is required in these clauses.
>
>  @lisp
>  (@var{test} => @var{expression})
> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ result of the @code{cond}-expression.
>  @var{key} may be any expression, and the @var{clause}s must have the form
> 
>  @lisp
> -((@var{datum1} @dots{}) @var{expr1} @var{expr2} @dots{})
> +((@var{datum1} @dots{}) @var{body} @dots{})
>  @end lisp
>
> Regards
>
>   Daniel