[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[scheme-reports-wg1] Re: [Scheme-reports] Return value for unmatched cond-expand
[Copying the WG1 list on this point.]
Christian Stigen Larsen scripsit:
> Draft 8 does not say whether the return value for an unmatched cond-expand
> is unspecified.
You're right, and it's All My Fault, but it's probably too late now.
The winning proposal was CondExpandCowan, which was cloned from SRFI 0.
In SRFI 0, falling off the end of a cond-expand is an error, and I
meant to clone that feature into my proposal, but didn't. That's not
a big problem for the cond-expand macro, because you can add your own
else clause. In the cond-expand library declaration, however, it's
another story, as there is no explicit way to signal an error from
library expansion. Chibi simply ignores the whole cond-expand in that
case, which is not perhaps the best thing.
> "[...] Otherwise, the cond-expand has no effect. Unlike cond,
> cond-expand does not depend on the value of any variables."
Without a vote, we can't override the previous vote. I do not feel
inclined to call for such a vote myself at this point, though other WG
members may feel differently.
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan
ear. However, I would suggest you wash your cowan@x
hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan