Right, I agree with this. My question is basically: are we going to, in the reasonably near future, be encouraging people to program in a `#lang racket2` where `cond` works differently, in which case it doesn't seem worth it to change `match`. Otherwise, I'll do this now.
Sam On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > Cond's else cannot change. I agree that that's what I would change if I > could have it back to do it over, but we cannot. > > That's the way to perhaps be thinking about racket2, tho. > > Robby > > > On Friday, May 3, 2013, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Robby Findler >> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> > >> > For this kind of thing, my preference would be to change match than to >> > issue >> > a warning. I don't like warnings that are basically admitting weaknesses >> > in >> > the language design.... Of course, changing a core thing like that may >> > be >> > more trouble than it is worth, due to backwards compatibility concerns, >> > which is why I think it is worth raising here to see what others think. >> >> I'm happy to make this change to `match`, except that I've heard >> Matthew say that he would have used a keyword for `else` in `cond` if >> he had it to do over again, and I wouldn't want to change one way, and >> then change back. >> >> Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
