This nonsense seems to be valid syntax: #;1> (and-let* ((foobar 1 2 3)) foobar) 1
2 and 3 are not even evaluated as the following example demonstrates: #;2> (and-let* ((foobar 1 (sleep 100))) foobar) 1 I think it's dangerous to leave it as it is. For example: #;3> (and-let* (((or #f #t))) 1) ;; correct 1 #;4> (and-let* ((or #f #t)) 1) ;; WRONG! -> a stricter syntax would catch this error #f Ciao, Michele _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
