[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: LISP-FORUM at MIT-MC
- Subject: &NO
- From: Alan Bawden <ALAN at MIT-MC>
- Date: Sat ,26 Sep 81 03:05:00 EDT
This is my vote against the proposed lambda-list syntax. I don't see
where it offers a substantial enough improvement in anything to make
it worth our while to re-write all the existing &mumble parsers.
I don't buy the argument that extending the syntactic space so as to
allow for everybody's flavor of destructuring is desireable. This
moves me straight into the destructuring-doesn't-belong-in-lambda-lists
camp. While before I was willing to select one flavor of destructuring
for lambda-lists, overloading lambda-lists with ALL kinds of
destructuring seems absurd to me.
I suppose the ultimate outcome of this is to allow the user to define
his own lambda-list keywords:
(def-lambda-list-keyword (one-or-more-of x) ...)
would be the way to extend lambda in the direction of LSB...