Re: Code for cond*

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > that the new cond* fall-through bindings don't lexically wrap
  > their users.

I understand cond* in a different way which leads to the opposte conclusion.

match* is not a separate construct in its own right.  It is part of
the syntax of using cond*, and it can only be used there.

These bindings belong to cond*.  Their scope is a part of the cond*
expression, which does wrap their uses.

Would this be clearer if we replace `match*' with `:match'?  I
wouldn't mind minor changes like that.  I'm concerned about its
powerful features and its simplicity.

Another possible syntax change: non-exit clauses could also be mored
to top level, as in the first two lines in this example.

  (cond* :match (PATTERN DATUM)
         :bind (BINDINGS...)
         ;; The rest are exiting clauses.
         (:match (PATTERN DATUM) CLAUSE-BODY...)
         (COND-EXP CLAUSE-BODY...)
         (:bind (BINDINGS...) COND-EXP CLAUSE-BODY...))

I prefer the syntax I've already proposed, because it expresses
syntactix relationships using parens.  But I'll agree to changes like
these if others have a clear preference for them.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)