[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: humble proposal: New special form progn-1

From: Tino Calancha
Subject: Re: humble proposal: New special form progn-1
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 23:38:33 +0900 (JST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:

On 2016-07-27 08:16, Tino Calancha wrote:
Dear all,

i got this idea few days ago (see the patch at the end).

Even though I envision that no one here will like this proposal,
for me it's instructive to learn from your answers why this is
not a good idea.

:) I don't have anything strongly against it myself. Any reason to not make it 
a lisp macro though?

My (weak) motivation for introduce this is:

* Compact (and familiar) syntaxis.
* Same reasons to exists as prog2 has (excluding historical reasons).
* Other way to acomplish one usual task.
* Allow lower indentation level (see below):

Sounds good. One worry that I have with the name is that I read it as 
(progn)-(1), not prog(n-1).
You mean that could confuse some people that is like:
(1- (progn (form)))
I still like progn-1 more because naturally fit in the sequence:
prog1, prog2, ..., progn

Of course does.  I didn't claim i exhausted the casuistic :-)
Thank you!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]