[racket-dev] else clauses: possible change to match?

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Fri May 3 11:12:58 EDT 2013

A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going
> to guess that "near" isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big
> things that we should be focused on going first (notably the package
> system).

+1, since the "damage" would be that people will need to convert uses
`match', but that'll be minor compared to `cond'.

A few minutes ago, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
> I've used else as a catch-all binding in match. Yes, it's not the
> best practice, but I think since I've done it, other people must
> have done it too. This could annoy them.

Do you have an actual use that would *break*?  That is, something like

    (match x ... [else else])

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.