[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: MOON at MIT-MC (David A. Moon)
- Date: Thu, 10 May 79 03:09:00 GMT
- Cc: NIL at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 9 MAY 1979 2309-EDT
Date: 9 MAY 1979 2021-EDT
From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
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>))
If there's real argument/interest, there could also be PROG-LET*
Wouldn't it be upward-compatible just to use PROG?