Re: `thunk-let'?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:41:47 +0100
> 
> > IMHO, lazy-let is much better as a name: thunk-let doesn't describe
> > what it does, only how it's implemented; more importantly,
> > JavaScript-like Promises could also be implemented with thunks, so
> > it's ambiguous.
> 
> What do others think about this?  I had already asked if making
> `lazy-let' an alias to `thunk-let' would be ok (package prefix rule),
> but nobody had answered.

My opinion about this doesn't necessarily mean much, but I think such
n alias could be a good thing.

> A second question is: Do we really want to have the library have no
> autoloads?

I see no reason not to autoload these.