[cdr-discuss] Three RFCs

[Pascal Costanza]

On 18 Mar 2008, at 12:52, Edi Weitz wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:36:47 +0100, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net>  
> wrote:
>
>> ...but that's ambiguous:
>
> Only if you insist on having a short form without parentheses.  That's
> not a hard-and-fast requirement.

What about backwards compatibility?

Or to put it differently: Are we talking about an extension of  
cl:case, or a new case that's different from cl:case?

>> (case (thing :test #'=)
>>   (42 'foo)
>>   (4711 'bar))
>>
>> What's the result of that form?
>
> Error: The variable THING is unbound.

There was a binding for a function and a variable thing in my example.

cl:case would interpret the second form as a call of the function  
thing, and that should remain so for backwards compatibility.


Pascal

-- 
1st European Lisp Symposium (ELS'08)
http://prog.vub.ac.be/~pcostanza/els08/

Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium