From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Code for cond* Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3661"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 30 14:04:29 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 1rUnmu-0000fd-Qq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:04:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUnl7-0002jR-9F; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:38 -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 1rUnl3-0002iq-ET for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUnky-0007ml-5i; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:33 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4EF141000DA; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:23 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1706619742; bh=LRLekAQG7uz7vf+aev230qPtlnUYPUPTZCKg+6qlzfE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=WKmeLpUd2wQbbKM1r0/J8Z5HnSNp7Y6pmn53iZrTQ1v7tHe/dlhSEihbWePy9Uxug 9qaGRCKtGzDRMjLnhdRqMGPgZ1KhUvVUOKe19+EWXJ53BaPn25U34wa3VRaDMKm4dY xG+dgWRUgu9xjSuOdDhXpfVzHScK1xHuryF7BEgnWVNQJ06JRztW3Xn2aITeVR5tkN VW/HQ0rzSqxLed5K3/54XiQozeZOutlTHlJYp20etWMsVQ/YKYT/xueJl3A5mVSovR m6boSEUNNuCIZHimaEwtF7WQQgPePBr/S+dj/jR2vUKljnCiI2J3kERkxpSYZ9XsVA OyccX/vIoMn2w== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6100A100054; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:22 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (104-222-119-131.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.119.131]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AFEC120446; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:02:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:59:21 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:315637 Archived-At: > > > `let*' is a Lisp function, and that is reflected in the syntax for using it. > > > Calling this `let*' would be misleading, > > I didn't suggest to call it `let*`. > > `pcase-let` is not called `let` and neither is `cl-macrolet` :-) > What, then, would you suggest as a name instead of bind*? > I can't see where that finger is pointing. `:let*`? > > I do like such a uniform rule. I just think it needs to be more visible > > than just the absence of something before the next close paren. > Would you like to show me more suggestions? That way I could see if I like > any of them. I don't know, but other than [...] I guess you could put some keyword before non-branches, or at the beginning of non-branches. Stefan