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

[Mark Oteiza]

On 13/09/17 at 07:05pm, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu> writes:
> 
> > Ok, great.  All tests passed, so I installed it.  Closing!
> 
> Thanks, good work.
> 
> One more small thing I thought about after Stefan's question: We have
> this sentence in the doc of `if-let*':
> 
> | An element can additionally be of the form (VALUEFORM), which is
> | evaluated and checked for nil.
> 
> Would it ease understanding if we would add something like "i.e. you can
> omit the SYMBOL if you are only interested in the test result".

I think so.

> Oh, and I find we have some inconsistency: I haven't looked how the
> behavior was before, but I see that `if-let*' (and thus `when-let*')
> treats an empty VARLIST as failure (the ELSEs are executed).  Contrary
> to `and-let*', which treats it as success.  IMO, `and-let*' does what is
> expected, and we should change `if-let*' to behave accordingly (and as
> the documentation suggests).
> 
> WDYT?

Agreed.  Pushed a change for both points.