[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cond*
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: cond* |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:27:00 +0000 |
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> Fall-through clauses are an important feature of cond* and a big
> advance in flexibility. Precisely how to indicate one is a detail,
> and I've proposed three ways to design that:
>
> * A clause with one element.
> * A clause that starts with t.
> * A clause that starts with nil.
> * A keyword.
>
> If you have preferences about that detail, please let me know.
> I am also interested in other suggestions, but I will only accept
> it if it is as natural and simple as those above.
Have I missed something, or where is the source code for cond*.
Skimming through the messages, I don't quite understand how it is
supposed to work.
- RE: [External] : Re: cond*, (continued)
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/23
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/12/21
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/23
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/12/25
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/18
- Re: cond*, João Távora, 2023/12/19
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/21
- Re: cond*,
Philip Kaludercic <=
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/24
- Re: cond*, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/12/25
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/26
- Re: cond*, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/12/27
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/28
- RE: [External] : Re: cond*, Drew Adams, 2023/12/19
- Re: [External] : Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/20
- Re: [External] : Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/20
- cond*, Richard Stallman, 2023/12/17
- Re: cond*, Adam Porter, 2023/12/18