[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: null LAMBDA bodies?
- Subject: Re: null LAMBDA bodies?
- From: Guy.Steele at CMU-10A
- Date: Tue ,2 Dec 80 13:38:00 EDT
Actually, the "implicit PROGN" of a COND is consistent with other
implicit PROGN's, if you take the point of view that the predicate
is actually the first element of the PROGN. Then it is always true
that the last element is returned. What is inconsistent is the
funny test after the first PROGN element. Under this interpretation
PROGN of zero arguments is then consistent:
(COND ((FOO X) Y) () (T GLEEP))
That second clause is an empty PROGN, which produces (), so the
test fails, and... Existing implementations probably barf at that,
but it *is* reminiscent of the treatment of top-level ()'s in an ASSQ
list, isn't it?