Why malformed let-form is silently accepted?

Why malformed let-form is silently accepted?

[Dmitry Antipov]

(let 1) ==> eval: Wrong type argument: sequencep, 1
(let [1 2 3 4]) ==> nil ???

Dmitry

Re: Why malformed let-form is silently accepted?

[Stefan Monnier]

> (let 1) ==> eval: Wrong type argument: sequencep, 1
> (let [1 2 3 4]) ==> nil ???

I don't think the behavior matters much when we pass invalid code to
`eval'.  OTOH it's important that we report it when byte-compiling it.


        Stefan "`eval' is just a crutch needed for bootstrapping"

Re: Why malformed let-form is silently accepted?

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> (let 1) ==> eval: Wrong type argument: sequencep, 1
>> (let [1 2 3 4]) ==> nil ???
>
> I don't think the behavior matters much when we pass invalid code to
> `eval'.  OTOH it's important that we report it when byte-compiling it.
>
>
>         Stefan "`eval' is just a crutch needed for bootstrapping"

Chewing is just a crutch when nobody is regurgitating for you.

-- 
David Kastrup

Why malformed let-form is silently accepted?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Dmitry Antipov writes:

 > (let 1) ==> eval: Wrong type argument: sequencep, 1
 > (let [1 2 3 4]) ==> nil ???

Not in XEmacs, which tests for listp, not sequencep.

I guess Stefan is trying to evolve Elisp into Clojure, or maybe
Python.

Shouldn't-that-test-be-monadp-ly y'rs,

.