hi!
i was touching SWITCH and friends to understand #'string= and 'string= and created a shared expander for the 3 variants.
in the process i was thinking that removing the :default key arg and testing for a 'cl:otherwise clause would be much more cl-ish, but that would mean an incompatible change.
(switch ("xxx" :test #'string=) ("alma" 1) ("korte" 2) (otherwise 42))
opposed to
(switch ("xxx" :test #'string= :default 42) ("alma" 1) ("korte" 2))
what do people thing about it?
On 31/07/07, Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai@gmail.com wrote:
in the process i was thinking that removing the :default key arg and testing for a 'cl:otherwise clause would be much more cl-ish, but that would mean an incompatible change.
(switch ("xxx" :test #'string=) ("alma" 1) ("korte" 2) (otherwise 42))
Looks much better than the :default argument, IMHO. Could it also accept T as a synonym for OTHERWISE?
(switch ("xxx" :test #'string=) ("alma" 1) ("korte" 2) (otherwise 42))
Looks much better than the :default argument, IMHO. Could it also accept T as a synonym for OTHERWISE?
hm, i was thinking why :default was born and i thought that because specially handling T is somehow confusing or makes some situations impossible to handle. but after giving a few more thoughts i think T could also be used just like with COND and CASE.
On 7/31/07, Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai@gmail.com wrote:
(switch ("xxx" :test #'string=) ("alma" 1) ("korte" 2) (otherwise 42))
Looks much better than the :default argument, IMHO. Could it also accept T as a synonym for OTHERWISE?
hm, i was thinking why :default was born and i thought that because specially handling T is somehow confusing or makes some situations impossible to handle. but after giving a few more thoughts i think T could also be used just like with COND and CASE.
T and OTHERWISE are both fine with me, I think.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
alexandria-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Attila Lendvai -
Luís Oliveira -
Nikodemus Siivola