[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

I hate IF.

I hate the "feature" whereby IF accepts multiple alternate-forms.  I would be
in favor of eliminating that, and perhaps even the optionality of the
alternate-forms.  Thus rather than

	(IF pred con . alts)

the syntax would be

	(IF pred con alt).

This reverts to the original IF of the SCHEME revised report, and
"fixes" some of your complaints.  I don't buy the indentation argument;
perhaps you should be complaining about the compiler inadequacy whereby
you pay in efficiency when you introduce an auxiliary routine.  Status
quo does have some weight in my opinions about how T should look (viz.
CAR, CONS, NIL, EQ), even though I can't really articulate where I draw
the line.  You may think there's a big difference between 5 and 7
characters in this case, but I don't think so.

Maybe IF's presence is irrelevant and confusing; so don't use it if you
think that.  But even if it was flushed I don't know whether I'd rename
COND to be IF.