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


    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>))
            (PROG () 
    If there's real argument/interest, there could also be PROG-LET*

I guess I don't see why just
	(LET ...
	     (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.