[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Code for cond*
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Code for cond* |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:04:21 -0500 |
[[[ 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. ]]]
> `:let*`?
If everyone prefers this, I'll go along with that preference. But I
think that name would be misleading. :bind is roughly similar to let*
but they are different enough that use of the name let* for the former
could cause confusion.
> I don't know, but other than [...] I guess you could put some keyword
> before non-branches, or at the beginning of non-branches.
The current version of cond* supports both. This is described
in the doc string.
--
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)
- Re: Code for cond*, (continued)
- Re: Code for cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/02/24
- Re: Code for cond*, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Stefan Monnier, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Stefan Monnier, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Stefan Monnier, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Stefan Monnier, 2024/02/25
- Re: Code for cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/02/26
Re: Code for cond*,
Richard Stallman <=