[racket-dev] Falling through cond clauses

Oh, no, as far as a "does it work out of the box" experiment goes, it
fails.  Racket doesn't even compile.  I meant more along the lines of our
immutable-cons experiment, where we fix a bunch of code and see how
problematic the compatibility issue becomes over time.

Carl Eastlund

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM, J. Ian Johnson <ianj at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

> This experiment should be easy to run, no? Change the default cond and run
> DrDr?
> -Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Eastlund" <cce at ccs.neu.edu>
> To: "Racket Developers" <dev at racket-lang.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:52:38 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [racket-dev] Falling through cond clauses
>
>
> I often wish cond would raise an exception if all the tests failed and
> there were no else clause. I have taken to writing a macro to enforce this;
> I usually call it cond!. The void default for cond seems like an
> un-Racketish holdover from primarily-imperative programming. With some of
> the other changes we've made in Racket, are we willing to consider changing
> the fall-through behavior of cond? It seems like an experiment worth
> running to me.
>
> If not, I would at least like to add an erroring version of cond somewhere
> in the language. It's a shame to have to keep writing such a primitive
> feature. Right now in my dracula github repo I have cond! implemented in
> racket/cond and re-exported from racket, but I'm not thrilled about either
> the location or the name. I kept it out of racket/base so I could depend on
> the syntax collection for good source location reporting in the error
> message.
>
> Carl Eastlund
>
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20121002/4302365d/attachment.html>