Re: if-let/if-let*/and-let/..

[Mark Oteiza]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> If we are ok with breaking code that depends on the special case
>> (SYMBOL
>> VALUEFORM) semantics that the original if-let and when-let had, that
>> is:
>>
>>   (when-let (a 1) a)
>
> That's a part I didn't understand: why did we drop support for this in
> when-let*?

Discussed in #28254:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=28254#38