[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: KMP at MIT-MC
- From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
- Date: Sun, 5 Apr 81 17:20:00 GMT
- Cc: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 5 APR 1981 1220-EST
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 ??) ?