> Thanks.  If you have indeed been coming across this in practice, then it
> seems worth adding a macro like this.
>
> Btw, I think we would want to see an update to cl.texi along with your
> change.

I've written a draft for what it could look like.  It needs proofreading
and editing, but it should be a fine-ish place to start from at least.
It uses `cl-once-only*' as the name of the macro but that's just a
placeholder for now.  (Do we want a NEWS entry also?)

I've also made it so that the first argument can either be of the form
(VARIABLE FORMS) or VARIABLE - how it worked before - which stands for
(VARIABLE VARIABLE), so as to keep parity with `cl-once-only'.

I've attached the change to cl.texi and the full implementation of
`cl-once-only*' as a single patch.

>> I don't necessarily think that that name is bad but it doesn't quite get
>> to the heart of the macro either.
>>
>> The macro is meant to be a `cl-once-only' which works on a list of
>> forms, and I feel that the "of forms" part is more important than the
>> "list" part, which is conceptually more likely to take on a meaning of
>> some ambiguous "collection" rather than a chain of cons cells.
>
> I think we should reserve the starred name for now.  As you said, your
> macro doesn't come up often, and we might later come up with a variant
> of cl-once-only that we want to use very often.

I see that point, and it is completely fair.  I have no problem
conceding the starred name.

> cl-seq-once-only ?

How about `cl-once-only-multiple'?  The name should probably be of the
form `cl-once-only<something>', rather than `cl-<something>-once-only' I
think.