On 18 Mar 2008, at 12:52, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:36:47 +0100, Pascal Costanza <pc@p-cos.net> wrote:
...but that's ambiguous:
Only if you insist on having a short form without parentheses. That's not a hard-and-fast requirement.
What about backwards compatibility? Or to put it differently: Are we talking about an extension of cl:case, or a new case that's different from cl:case?
(case (thing :test #'=) (42 'foo) (4711 'bar))
What's the result of that form?
Error: The variable THING is unbound.
There was a binding for a function and a variable thing in my example. cl:case would interpret the second form as a call of the function thing, and that should remain so for backwards compatibility. Pascal -- 1st European Lisp Symposium (ELS'08) http://prog.vub.ac.be/~pcostanza/els08/ Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium