From f5451b6a0668f4dc9992562b62ed37a199f1fdad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sean Whitton Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:53:02 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ; Improve comment from last change --- lisp/subr.el | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/subr.el b/lisp/subr.el index d1b2a1efe6e..0acc24042f8 100644 --- a/lisp/subr.el +++ b/lisp/subr.el @@ -2654,8 +2654,9 @@ are non-nil, then the result is the value of the last binding. Some Lisp programmers follow the convention that `and' and `and-let*' are for forms evaluated for return value, and `when' and `when-let*' are for forms evaluated for side-effect with returned values ignored." - ;; Document this convention here because it partially explains why we - ;; have both `when-let*' and `and-let*'. + ;; ^ Document this convention here because it explains why we have + ;; both `when-let*' and `and-let*' (in addition to the additional + ;; feature of `and-let*' when BODY is empty). (declare (indent 1) (debug if-let*)) (let (res) (if varlist -- 2.30.2