18 Mar
2008
18 Mar
'08
2:49 p.m.
See above. I would think that the chances of vendors actually changing CL:CASE proper are pretty slim.
I'm all for extending CL:CASE in a backwards-compatible way. Why would that be a problem for CL implementors? Extending the macro in a backwards-compatible way doesn't look any different to me from adding a new function.
Leslie