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! Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
