Hello, Yuri Lensky <y...@ydl.cm> writes:
> I now understand what you mean by the second call to symbol-value not being > needed. The previous behavior only chose this "branch" of the cond if > symbol-value was not nil. To keep this behavior but only have one call to > symbol-value, why not change to (keep the symbol-value in the cond as > opposed to the body of the branch): > > ((and (symbolp file) (boundp file) (symbol-value file))) > > to keep the old behavior of the cond statement? We don't need to keep the old behaviour. The current one is as good. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
