[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: JONL at MIT-MC, BUG-LISP at MIT-MC
- Subject: PROG-LET
- From: "Guy L. Steele, Jr." <GLS at MIT-MC>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 79 18:23:00 GMT
- Cc: NIL at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 10 May 1979 14:23-EDT
Date: 9 MAY 1979 2021-EDT
From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
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>))
If there's real argument/interest, there could also be PROG-LET*
I guess I don't see why just
(PROG () ... ))
isn't acceptable. In particular, with a name as long as LET-PROG,
you don't save much at all (one column) in the rightward indentation
drift, which is the typical motivation for such collapsings.