[cdr-discuss] Three RFCs

[Edi Weitz]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:46:14 +0100, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:

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

I thought the latter.  The former doesn't seem like a reasonable CDR
to me.  But, hey, I'm just trying to give feedback... :)

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

Ah, sorry, I missed the variable binding.

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

See above.  I would think that the chances of vendors actually
changing CL:CASE proper are pretty slim.