[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[no subject]

So why won't PROG do?
    Date: 9 MAY 1979 2309-EDT
    From: MOON at MIT-MC (David A. Moon)
    Subject: PROG-LET
    To: JONL at MIT-MC, (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
    CC: NIL at MIT-MC
    
	Date: 9 MAY 1979 2021-EDT
	From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
	Subject: PROG-LET
	To: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
	CC: NIL at MIT-MC
	
	Would any one object to a version of LET, say called "LET-PROG",
	which is like let, but does a PROG action rather than a PROGN action?
	This would allow the destructuring provided by LET be available
	in a PROG context.
	   (PROG-LET ((<v1> <e1>) ... (<vn> <en>)) <body>) 
	turns into something like
	   (LET ((<v1> <e1>) ... (<vn> <en>))
		(PROG () 
		  <body>))
	If there's real argument/interest, there could also be PROG-LET*
    Wouldn't it be upward-compatible just to use PROG?
Because none of the current LISP systems allow destructuring in the
PROG variables, and poooor MACLISP doesn't even allow init forms.
The LET macro package could expand into PROG if all such features
were imbedded in PROG.