From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Better documentation for non-binding clauses of if-let and friends Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:03:32 -0500 Message-ID: References: <861pzkmk5v.fsf@gnu.org> <5998bf4f-c35b-409d-9e76-d31ce037c8df@vodafonemail.de> <23d411e4-5bcb-4a24-a0ff-464a7b51b168@vodafonemail.de> <87ttcfgn0z.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="615"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jschmidt4gnu@vodafonemail.de, joostkremers@fastmail.fm, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org To: Sean Whitton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 11 11:04:38 2024 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 1tARHi-000AY4-2F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:04:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tARGm-0005ru-7j; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:03:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tARGf-0005qf-7C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:03:33 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tARGe-0002md-QO; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:03:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=mrshqJ95qlPDV8PGdmxLq/pbhX9qyh/8Lo4FQTuAmVc=; b=oipeaY/nl9fd bZh5XFfMASp0DeEhnRwcT7aDSeVtDF+QHerwvZjAjAeMAolqWGq2Ba7ulMFq14HLM3G6+jedZDVSc WcG9sTn5WcfRDLQ2kqQZMCwjprU62TwdpVILkmH+1Qw5kMfH/8IZEkbWYAC+eaUd5TnttyKJMoRws g3zb71ZFRZFZ+G08GV1n6NoCsRylGi6woLVuiHKPm5wwMGM/6+hg+vWeE33JZOWm9Fwe/7GB8A8Zs jVnha4oWjUzi4w0szSUXHhoZu3hMl6vVw3PjZ1A0aaFx/EBIDdPGWIdefEe5XPtvmbSE8XbMcYp1M qI9RyEV0AHWrtVBghH/lHw==; Original-Received: from ams by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tARGe-0000BL-Dt; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:03:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ttcfgn0z.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:51:24 +0800) 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325398 Archived-At: > For all of these SPEC is similar to what let* offers, with a few > extensions useful in the context of testing conditions: As with > let*, an element of SPEC which is a list (SYMBOL VALUEFORM) binds > SYMBOL to the value of VALUEFORM. I think we should make sure we keep the reference to let*, indeed. That just causes confusion, LET* bindings can be changed, they do not support a spec binding that is of the form VALUEOFORM (which in a LET/LET* binding would be SYMBOL). They are not similar at all. Leaving out references to LET and just explaining how the binding spec actually works would be much better, and not lead to confusion. Would one of you kindly combine them, and also post it as an actual diff? -- Sean Whitton