RE: humble proposal: New special form progn-1

[Tino Calancha]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Drew Adams wrote:

> and sometimes for a return-value computation that is followed by
> some side effect such as showing a message.
>
> But for most cases where someone else might use `prog1' I'm already
> let-binding a variable that I use for the value that might otherwise
> be returned by the `prog1' (or by a `prog2').
>
> (let (... result) ... (setq result ...) ... result)

Yeah, i also like binding one 'result' variable: this way
all defun's in the code sistematically return
the last evaluated form.  Its easier to read.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
> No, that's not what I meant. I meant that in Lisp when I want to write
> (n - 1) I actually write (- n 1); thus, when I see progn-1,
> I don't read it as "prog (n minus 1)", but instead as "progn dash 1".
> Given the convention that foo-1 usually means
> "internal function used in the implementation of foo",
> I read it as "internal function used to implement progn".

This is another point against my proposal: the notation could be 
misleading.

So, i give up with my proposal.
Thank you very much.

Tino