Re: if-let/if-let*/and-let/..

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:

> >>> - why do we have and-let* ?  According to its docstring the only
> >>> case when it differs from when-let* is when body is nil, but in
> >>> that case you're better off moving the last binding to the body
> >>> (and use when-let*).
> >>
> >> The discussion about this was in bug#28254.  The original and-let*
> >> version was much more different from `when-let*', but AFAIR Noam
> >> vetoed against this version, so they got more similar in the end.
> >
> > Is it worth keeping this "more similar" result at all?

I think it is worth it, for the same reason we keep having `when' though
we have `if' or `and': to make code better readable and its intention
better understandable.

> >> The original reason was that we decided that the names without "*" are
> >> quite confusing and we wanted to get rid of them in the future.
> >
> > Is the benefit of slightly reducing confusion (I really find it hard to
> > believe the confusion is serious, since the dependencies between the
> > different steps would make it rather inconvenient to provide a real
> > "parallel-let" semantics)

In my case, my brain always told me that the * name is the canonical
one, so I always got errors.  I think nobody thinks through what you
said when writing code.

> > worth the burden of those compatibility/obsolescence issues (I'd
> > also mention the confusing aspect of having an extra * for a
> > construct that doesn't exist without a *, even though traditionally
> > the * is used to mark an "alternative" definition, as in list*,
> > mapcar*, ...).

I think when using `when-let' etc. more people have the analogy to `let'
in mind than mapcar* vs. mapcar, but I see your point: the obsolescence
issue is very unpleasant.

> > Another question is why aren't when-let and when-let* aliases of
> > each other?  Currently we have 5 variants (2 of which are
> > deprecated) each with very slightly different semantics.

That makes no sense, indeed.  Would keeping both names as aliases be ok
to you?

> PS: I'm also biased against when-let* because I find this * ugly.

So, what are your suggestions?

And @Mark: What do you think about Stefan's points?


Michael.