[no subject]

[Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>]

If I understand what RPG is saying then I think that I am not convinced
by his point.  I don't think that just because multiple-value-bind takes
a list of variables that are being bound to variables means that it HAS
to have all the features that LAMBDA combinations have, in the name of
language simplicity, because I just don't think that the inconsistency
there bothers me very much.  It is a very localized inconsistency and I
really do not belive it is going to confuse people much.

However, I still object to RMS's proposal as am still opposed to having
"destructuring LET".  I have flamed about this enough in the past that I
will not do it now.  However, having a "destructuring-bind" (by some
name) form that is like LET except that it destructures might be a
reasonable solution to providing a way to allow multiple-value-bind work
without any perceived language inconsistency.