[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FEATURE-CASEQ and TARGET-FEATURES
- To: RWK at MIT-MC
- Subject: Re: FEATURE-CASEQ and TARGET-FEATURES
- From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
- Date: Wed ,26 Nov 80 16:58:00 EDT
- Cc: LISP-FORUM at MIT-MC
Date: 25 November 1980 18:12-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK>
((AND MACLISP (NOT FORMAT)) (PRINT "What a loss"))
((OR MULTICS LISPM) (PRINT "Big address space"))
(T "I'm lost!"))
[The same, but perform ALL clauses for which FEATUREP test wins].
What think you?
Well, calling it xCASEQ is probably a bad idea since the AND/OR
idea is not valid in CASEQ. Probably something like FEATURE-COND
or FEATURE-TEST would be more flavorful if you wanted to allow
AND/OR/NOT to be in the list. How about FEATURE-TEST for finding
first clause that works and FEATURE-TESTS for finding all clauses
In general, I think this concept of TARGET-FEATUREs, etc. is really
the right way to go. I think we have seen in Macsyma and NIL that
the current concept of features is too restrictive and ambiguous
to be very reliable.