bug#28254: 26.0.50; SRFI-2 and-let*

[Mark Oteiza]

On 01/09/17 at 11:05pm, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu> writes:
>
> >  (and-let* ((x ...)
> >             (y ...)
> >             ((x > y)))
> >    ...)
>
> I assume you meant (> x y), unless you've managed to somehow squeeze an
> infix expression parser into that patch above ;)

Ah yeah, I wish!

> > I didn't try writing it in the style of if-let*--perhaps if-let* could
> > be extended and all three macros would learn (EXPR).
>
> Yes, I think it's best if all foo-let* macros interpret the varlist in
> the same way.

Alright, I'll look at it.