Matus Goljer

@alphapapa Well right now you have ``` ((type number &keys :salted salted) (type &keys :salted salted) (type number) (type) :defaults ((number 10) (salted t))) ``` which is not aligned with...

Hmm, this is a great idea. How many times I've written convoluted `cond`s that this would nicely solve.

Do you want to try to come up with a solution? It doesn't have to be perfect, we can iterate on it. If not it's fine too, I'll move it...

Oh the lambda thing is pretty clever, no evil anaphora ;D I don't like the `=>` syntax much though. I played a bit with this at work but there are...

I'm revisiting the binding stuff (recently implemented `-setq`). One thing I would like to keep is that the "extended" versions should support the regular syntax as well, so that simply...

We must also make sure that writing a condition which is a function call will not mistakenly bind, for example `(cond ((foo bar) "body"))` means "call `foo` on `bar`" and...

I personally like the ... syntax but it's a bit unlispy. We can go with `&middle` or multiple `&rest` uses. Although what would be the match with three of those...

I would understand `(foo &rest last)` to only bind the rest of the items to the `last`. Only in case there is more than one item we would bind the...

I think we had this proposed before and for some reason it didn't move forward or was rejected (or maybe the issue is still open?) I think there is now...

I don't think so. We can add `-insert-sorted` and `-union-sorted` which would use `