[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential
From: |
Harald Hanche-Olsen |
Subject: |
Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:55:51 +0200 (CEST) |
[Bozhidar Batsov <address@hidden> (2014-08-11 17:49:29 UTC)]
> Binding multiple locals in such a form reduces the clarity of the
> code because the semantics are not that clear anymore - should all
> the forms produce non-nil or should only the first form produce
> non-nil?
This is a valid point, I think. The macros need better nams.
I suggest if-every-let and when-every-let to make it clearer.
There, that's enough bikeshedding for one day.
I'll go back to lurking now.
– Harald
- if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, John Mastro, 2014/08/09
- Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, Stefan Monnier, 2014/08/10
- Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, Bozhidar Batsov, 2014/08/11
- Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2014/08/11
- Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, Richard Stallman, 2014/08/11
- Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, John Mastro, 2014/08/11
- Re: if-let and when-let: parallel or sequential, Elias Mårtenson, 2014/08/12