On 2012.12.04 04:35, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
On Dec 4, 2012, at 04:52 , Pixie pix@kepibu.org wrote:
On 2012.12.03 09:31, Marco Antoniotti wrote: To be honest, I'm not sure I understand what problem you're trying to solve by adding this PAT thing. The extensibility of cl-unification via #t(...) is one of the things I love about it[1], and your PAT syntax doesn't appear to do much outside of lists--which, well, isn't that what the *F variants are for?
Well, the PAT thingy is just a non-completely-backward-compatible version of MATCH-CASE. To tell the truth the problem is all there. Also, I have developed a form of Racket envy given their slew of match** forms. :)
Heh. There's always the option of RACKET-ENVY:MATCH-CASE. ;)
Though if you're in the mood for cl-unification work, my cl-unification repo is still around[2], if you'd be interested in looking at and/or pulling patches from it. ;) Somewhere in the archives of this mailing list is a listing of what I changed and why. (Goodness, has it been several years already?!)
Well, yes. In some ways this says that the library is pretty solid :)
I believe I did incorporate at least some of your patches in the main trunk. I will have a look at your repo (and I should bite the bullet and just switch to git as main repository) and see what is still left out.
A few things, yeah. The big scary change to all the MATCH- stuff no, but you quite reasonably wanted more tests for that.
(CVS->git conversion via git-cvs works pretty smoothly, in my experience.)
[1] Though I've mentioned in the pre-Quicklisp days it'd be nice to have some named-readtable support.
Any specifics?
[1], basically, though the usage of asdf-system-connections would undoubtedly be overkill nowadays.
(in-readtable cl-unification:template-readtable) is very handy! :)
[1] http://repo.kepibu.org/browse/darcsweb.cgi?r=cl-unification;a=commitdiff;h=2...