hi,
i'd like switch to, just like case and typecase do, allow multiple values in the 'value' position of the condition:
(switch (foo) ((bar baz) ...))
So the attached patch checks for the key form being a cons and, if so, expands into a (member value :test test) instead of (test value) form. Of course, this means that your key values can no longer be forms, so this may break existing code. I don't have any code which actually uses a function call in the value form of the clause (and a quick grep over my locally installed lisp libs shows nobody else does either), so i'm ok with the change, but i can understand if others don't agree.
-- -marco
On 22 November 2012 10:02, Marco Baringer mb@bese.it wrote:
hi,
i'd like switch to, just like case and typecase do, allow multiple values in the 'value' position of the condition:
(switch (foo) ((bar baz) ...))
So the attached patch checks for the key form being a cons and, if so, expands into a (member value :test test) instead of (test value) form. Of course, this means that your key values can no longer be forms, so this may break existing code. I don't have any code which actually uses a function call in the value form of the clause (and a quick grep over my locally installed lisp libs shows nobody else does either), so i'm ok with the change, but i can understand if others don't agree.
I think I like the idea of a multiple-value-switch, but I'm constantly (well, every 6 months) to remove switch and rewrite it, so I'm a bit hesitant to add more features to it...
Thinking about this. Feel free to kick me to remind me.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net writes:
I think I like the idea of a multiple-value-switch, but I'm constantly (well, every 6 months) to remove switch and rewrite it, so I'm a bit hesitant to add more features to it...
do you want to get rid of it completely (i'd be rather confused if you did) or are you just unhappy with the current implementation? (if that's the case, then i'd be more than happy to try a rewrite of it)
On 26 January 2013 18:21, Marco Baringer mb@bese.it wrote:
Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net writes:
I think I like the idea of a multiple-value-switch, but I'm constantly (well, every 6 months) to remove switch and rewrite it, so I'm a bit hesitant to add more features to it...
do you want to get rid of it completely (i'd be rather confused if you did) or are you just unhappy with the current implementation? (if that's the case, then i'd be more than happy to try a rewrite of it)
Unhappy with the details of the current implementation. I don't remember my grievances offhand, but looking in the list archives should locate them.
Wanting to first remove it so there's no silent breakage due to changing semantics.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
alexandria-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Marco Baringer -
Nikodemus Siivola