IF -- The reactionary strikes back

[Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin at YALE>]

Now I always thought that the (IF <test> <form> .  <rest>) syntax was
pretty awful and asymmetric.  However, I've come to believe that a lot
of tests are frequently asymmetric (and sometimes awful too) and that
it's not such a bad idea to have an asymmetric IF.  I tend to do:

    (IF <input unreasonable; user screwed up; etc>
        <return error token; print obnoxious msg; etc. in one form>
        <do 1st step of normal thing>
        <do 2nd step of normal thing>
        ...)

a lot.  I suppose my true trogginess is calling out for:

    (IF <input unreasonable; user screwed up; etc>
        (RETURN))
    <do 1st step of normal thing>
    <do 2nd step of normal thing>
    ...

but I'm too lazy to code a CATCH at the outermost scope of the procedure
I want to "return" out of.

Well, enough unclean thoughts.

                        -- Nat
-------