Re: Code for cond*

[tomas]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 02:05:24PM -0600, Adam Porter wrote:
> Dear Richard,

[...]

> * "making bindings that cover the rest of the body...the ability to make
> bindings and continue with further clauses"
> 
> As several here have mentioned, this is not universally perceived as an
> advance.  It can easily lead to ambiguity and cause confusion.  It is not
> very "Lispy" (similarly to cl-loop, where the bounds of its bindings are
> ultimately contained at the top level, but can be introduced without
> explicit or obvious bounds).

I agree on this one. This is the single feature which would confuse me
most: more and more I expect bindings to "stay whithin their lexical
context" with little exceptions. This would be one more.

Cheers
-- 
t

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature