[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DESTRUCTURING-BIND (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: DESTRUCTURING-BIND (Version 1)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 24 Jan 89 15:11 PST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Tue, 24 Jan 89 17:31 EST
Envos Medley also implements DESTRUCTURING-BIND as specified.
I think we should avoid the characterization "LOOP trojan horse" in the
discussion: if you think this is a problem with LOOP, we should discuss it
under the heading of LOOP. I'd like to avoid giving weight to arguments of
the form "since we let in X, lets let in Y too" since they are potentially
I think the rationale for this is that it is useful and corresponds to
I think the Proposal needs more clarification, "... which behaves like the
destructuring bind in DEFMACRO" being inconsistent with "Clarify that LOOP
does not permit the use of &keywords in its
destructuring, and that proper lists are implicitly `&REST ignore'
(where the variable is quietly ignored)."
In Medley's DESTRUCTURING-BIND, you can use &KEY arguments too.