Re: Code for cond*

[Stefan Monnier]

>   > > `let*' is a Lisp function, and that is reflected in the syntax for 
> using it.
>   > > Calling this `let*' would be misleading,
>   > I didn't suggest to call it `let*`.
>   > `pcase-let` is not called `let` and neither is `cl-macrolet` :-)
> What, then, would you suggest as a name instead of bind*?
> I can't see where that finger is pointing.

`:let*`?

>   > I do like such a uniform rule.  I just think it needs to be more visible
>   > than just the absence of something before the next close paren.
> Would you like to show me more suggestions?  That way I could see if I like
> any of them.

I don't know, but other than [...] I guess you could put some keyword
before non-branches, or at the beginning of non-branches.


        Stefan