>>>>> "James" == James Amundson <amundson@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
James> On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:56, ole.rohne@cern.ch wrote:
Jim> Does anyone understand why we have our own private version of let? It's
Jim> in letmac.lisp.
>>
>> According to maxima-package.lisp:
>>
>> let* ;;"CL-MAXIMA-SOURCE: MAXIMA; LET" ;;maxima:let* does destructuring.
>> let ;;"CL-MAXIMA-SOURCE: MAXIMA; LET" ;;like let*
>>
>> My guess is DESTRUCTURING-BIND was not available at the time. We should probably drop
>> MAXIMA::LET and MAXIMA::LET* in favour of the CL standard macros.
James> I would love to have someone do this. This kind of thing makes the
James> maxima source difficult to maintain, particularly for people who are not
James> familiar with the entire history of the Lisp family.
Why not rename them letf and letf*? I think cmucl has a destructuring
let named letf.
By renaming it, we can easily (I think) tell where we really need letf
because the compiler should complain about badly formed let's. Then
we can use letf for those cases.
Then if someone wants to replace them with destructuring-bind, it's
easier. But I think the name change would be as good, and certainly
less error-prone.
Ray