Re: Code for cond*

[Ihor Radchenko]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> The problem is that cond* is doing much more than just introducing
>> fall-through bindings.
>
> People appear to appreciate them, and as they say, "two is better than
> one..."
>
> Anyway, ...

FYI, I cannot understand the argument you are making.

I was replying to the following argument
>>> This alone is too important a feature to be consigned to ELPA.

My point is that "too important feature" does not have to be linked to
the proposed cond* construct. If we really think that fall-through
bindings are very important, installing cond* is not the only possible
way to introduce fall-through bindings into Elisp.

So, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we may consider
fall-through bindings separately, and maybe add them to more
conventional Elisp constructs like ordinary `cond'.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>