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!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
