[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
more on CASEQ
- To: KMP at MIT-MC
- Subject: more on CASEQ
- From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
- Date: Sun, 5 Apr 81 20:47:00 GMT
- Cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC, JONL at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 5 April 1981 15:47-EST
What the heck is this "SYMMETRY" you are talking about?
I see the following:
 Sometimes the predicate used is "EQ"
 Sometimes it is "="
In the interpreter both "EQ" and "=" do their own error checking,
so that there is no need for the CASEQ special form to deal with it.
Otherwise what it sounds like you are trying to do is construct
a special form which really doesn't make much sense in terms
of the other PRIMITIVES of the language.