Re: `thunk-let'?

[Michael Heerdegen]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

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

Hmm - Would it even be acceptable to make `lazy-let' and `lazy-let*' the
only names?

It would be strange if we would provide `lazy-let' and `lazy-let*' as
alias names because we think they are actually the more suitable names,
and present the macros in the manual as `thunk-let' and `thunk-let*'.

OTOH, if we call them `lazy-let' and `lazy-let*' in the docs and
everywhere, it would be strange to define them as `lazy-let' and
`lazy-let*' in the first place, and then nobody really uses these names.


Thanks,

Michael.