Re: `thunk-let'?

[Michael Heerdegen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> >> +  (should-error (byte-compile (thunk-let ((x 1 1)) x)))
> >> +  (should-error (byte-compile (thunk-let (27) x)))
> >> +  (should-error (byte-compile (thunk-let x x))))
>
> I think you can solve the problems mentioned by not using `byte-compile`
> but something more precise.  E.g.
>
>    (should-error (macroexpand '(thunk-let ((x 1 1)) x)))

Ok, done.


Michael.