[no subject]

[JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)]

    Date: 5 April 1981 12:04-EST
    From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
    Subject:  CASEQ doesn't do MEMQ
    Well, CASEQ has always been clearly defined to do this kind of error
    checking -- insisting on a type-match between its first arg and the test
    forms. The fact that Lisp happened not to detect errors in some cases is
    just an implementational artifact.
Do you claim there is some discrepancy between the documented action and
the implementation?  What are these "some cases" you mention?
    I agree, though, that we could relax the definition to be more tolerant
    of funny datatypes for CASEQ's first arg.
Didn't you suggest the other day that this should not be called CASEQ,
but rather something like GJCASEQ  (as an acronym, maybe for Generalized 
Jumping CASEQ ??) ?