From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sean Whitton Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 12f63c18f6 1/2: Add new macro 'while-let' Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 15:59:53 -0700 Message-ID: <8735bn9xxy.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> References: <166436449368.11560.17915607619196292155@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220928112814.B0924C12D9B@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87ill7ldwb.fsf@posteo.net> <8735cajwwp.fsf@gnus.org> <87a66immpi.fsf@posteo.net> <87v8p6h04z.fsf@gnus.org> <87czat5g6v.fsf@posteo.net> <87o7uc2ovd.fsf@gnus.org> <87h7045db0.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 17 01:02:41 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1okCeV-0009zV-UA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 01:02:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41172 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1okCeU-0004Ag-RO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:02:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1okCc1-0003Kz-8S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:00:05 -0400 Original-Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:41049) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1okCbz-0005ry-3b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7F73200094; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:59:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from :from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1665961198; x= 1666047598; bh=RGnil5I7+kDlSC9QR3T20l6xBocyQKiQUv+ymo9NR4g=; b=E np1FWb5rTx1/zm+Hbxiifxk5h1kYc55W7js7IAVHyoMKFDogrnrxWClnbroEx8Ax D2XbUh4iYf8cyza9VK4Yykghxl2WULyDoRRJmKjiicY1QywTKtVk+HjzKy0fAIjB n/i0lbLgByLUcqG8JgVAOLXh09hWgVMnT3zaTwdbl9Tx8f0lOGZeRNSIPwPAl7SL VLH50Wv0bM+xoYcZZt1fo05ml4gk0OSj6v9ByeXOthAmeIn0t8LR73/cI5vCXMZr bjg9txSEMbwVYoHmsKDKrF8azTAdjdGHBV9RzOxXNIgUqbW8KvEVTOhEe+ermhpr d3A5l2pJztKNKSimam9hg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1665961198; x= 1666047598; bh=RGnil5I7+kDlSC9QR3T20l6xBocyQKiQUv+ymo9NR4g=; b=n s1vRHYotzJ+IPJ7zMhh8VhzhATdZR7wPRZHqgQw0Ms85y1Be5aROUzbd+Xbijacr csgONzv+wyIDh1vq9GIoo1/k48aHZngkjq29xD2avPNjKwbrFbZuKwBmrGWEvLCh sy6/EsYhN5CGFZ+9YE39IssXnRm9g2AGA+A1KMdEbU/7qcMKaDSWsIkWRnFocQ2D G5LEOanG05AvWZrS1iCqzrYjFADGRieHmM+Ul/rqw7Nr2bygtFqfop2XECWlbi1y ps6TWIpe7X41TzPLLhZy5IzoPqd+ZSNTR5SYUbDs0ztLgzT6qZww8wi0+owBfxFG x35A+6+YmwH283bI0D4Xw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeekkedgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgfgsehtqhdttddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefuvggr nhcuhghhihhtthhonhcuoehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffefhfejudeguddtudekjeekueevvedvieeghfegleet uefhkeegkefhleejvddunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Original-Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D29757F7597; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 15:59:53 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <87h7045db0.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Sun, 16 Oct 2022 09:26:59 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.24; envelope-from=spwhitton@spwhitton.name; helo=wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:297892 Archived-At: Hello, On Sun 16 Oct 2022 at 09:26AM GMT, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > >> Philip Kaludercic writes: >> >>> On that topic, why do we have `and-let*' and no `and-let'? >> >> I'd rather ask "why do we have and-let at all"? =F0=9F=98=80 >> >> If you look at the in-tree usages of and-let*, most of them should >> clearly have been when-let instead, so I think it was a mistake to add >> and-let. > > I have recently started appreciating `and-let*' when I want to make it > explicit that the last binding is the return value, but I guess that any > > (and-let* ((foo bar) ... (baz qux))) > > is the same as > > (when-let ((foo bar) ...) (baz qux)) Yeah, that's a Lisp convention I learned from Magit's maintainer -- when/unless for side-effects, and/or for return value. I appreciate having and-let for this reason. --=20 Sean Whitton