Re: LET, LETF, etc. What do others think?

[Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>]

On a system which has so many builtins, I don't buy the ``it would be 
cluttering up the language to ...'' idea with regard to addition of a useful
feature. Features should be added on the basis of their need. 

Maclisp makes extensive use of destructuring LET. I think you should attempt
to be compatible. I don't think having a LETF (and maybe LETF*, though I see
no use for DOF, DOF*, PROGF, PROGF*) would be bad. It provides a useful
functionality at a low cost and would not be incompatible with existing
software. 

I would be interested in hearing the opinions of other LispM users. In 
particular, who favors and who opposes destructuring LET. If it is opposed
for some other reason than because there is a split between people who like
RMS's kind of destructuring and the Maclisp style, what is it? If that is
the only problem, who besides RMS thinks that something like LETF would be
a bad idea and why? Thanks. -kmp