Re: [cdr-discuss] Three RFCs

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:46:14 +0100, Pascal Costanza pc@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.