On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 08:31, Raymond Toy wrote:
> Why not rename them
Renaming sounds like a good idea.
> letf and letf*? I think cmucl has a destructuring
> let named letf.
Does cmucl's letf have exactly the same behavior as Maxima's internal
letf? If not, I would worry about adding to the confusion. Perhaps
another name would be better.
> 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.
OK, I'm convinced. The only question I have is about the name.
--Jim