Re: Problem with LETF

[RMS at MIT-AI (Richard M. Stallman)]

It would be a loss to create new binding constructs to use SETF-
style destructuring because there are already a lot of different
binding constructs, with different features, and we would have
to double their number.  We would have LETF and LETF* and PROGF
and PROGF* and DOF and DOF*, not to mention maybe LOOPF and FORF
and perhaps DEFUNF.
If LET were the only binding form in Lisp, then LETF would be fine,
but as things are it is important to use the same existing ones.