Re: [Chicken-users] and-let* syntax too permissive?

[Peter Bex]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> > 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
> 
> I agree this type of mistake should be caught.  Attached is a patch
> that fixes this (and adds a test for it).
> 
> Thanks for reporting this bug!

Of course I forgot the attachment...

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net

0001-Make-and-let-check-its-syntax-strictly-instead-of-si.patch
Description: Text document