[cdr-discuss] Re: Issue CASE-TEST

[Leslie P. Polzer]

> The proposal doesn't say anything how the argument to the :test keyword
> is dealt with. Judging from the examples, the argument is supposed to be
> evaluated.

Thanks, that's a real hole.


> I think your effort is misdirected. Why bother obfuscating CL:CASE?

I don't direct any serious effort into the implementation details.
Amending CL:CASE is just a suggestion.


> Make it a new operator. For example, in (*) I suggested to name such an
> operator SWITCH, and also proposed another operator called SELECT which
> behaves similiarly, but also evaluates each clause keys.

Why do you think this is necessary?


> I think providing the necessary changes to the Alexandria project would
> be more fruitful.

The CDR doesn't make any statements on how its documents should be
used, and although there has been some discussion, there's no consensus.

I intend to use the CDR exactly as what it is; a document repository
for Common Lisp amendments and changes.

  Leslie