> On Jan 31, 2024, at 10:51 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>> I wonder why (bind*) evaluates only its first value to determine
>> if the binding condition is true?  We already have macros which
>> evaluate the "truth of a set of bindings": the members of the
>> if-let family.  And they
> 
>> "Evaluate each binding in turn, as in ‘let*’, stopping if a
>> binding value is nil.  If all are non-nil return the [final]
>> value."
> 
> That does not seem natural to me at all.  I don't see that it is
> better.

It's very natural and familiar to users of if/when/and-let (close to 1000 calls in core packages), since this description is copied verbatim from their docs.  It is a natural way to avoid pre-calculating things you don't want to calculate until a prior step holds true.  

A typical logical paths might be:

Is some variable non-nil?
Is it a plist?
Does that plist has a :foobar element?
Is that :foobar element's value a vector.
Is slot 4 of that vector non-nil?  Call it `result'. 
If all of the above are true, (do-something-with result)