Re: Better documentation for non-binding clauses of if-let and friends

["Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>]

   That is the gotcha that got me: it says SPEC is "like let*", so this "-let*"
   in the name take my mind to believe it established ordinary let*-bindings.
   However, in while-let, these are not ordinary, but read-only. So they are
   not the same, since they don't obey the ordinary behavior of let* bindings.

I agree, but the question really is what should be done -- either
satisfy one camp or the other.

I personally do not get what one gets from using WHILE-LET -- the
construct seems forced, and very rare to use.

IF-LET, WHEN-LET I can maybe guess but they too seem force constructs,
and why isn't there a UNLESS-LET and OR-LET*? But I'll leave it at
that, personal preferences and all.

   >   But I agree with you that the manual is incomplete or even
   >   wrong here.

   If that semantic of while-let is desirable to have, than the manual would
   have to catch the details of while-let and its non-general nature, read-only
   semantic of bindings and perhaps mention the named-let as a more general
    alternative.

Yup.