Hi!
Well, the point of the change is to make it so that things other than
expressions are allowed. I change it to say @var{body}, and then later clarify
that @var{test} is an arbitrary expression and @var{body} is a lambda-like
body.
Which when reading it now sounds... not very good.
Would "is like the body of a lambda" be a better wording? That would imply that
at least one expression is required. English is very much not my first
language, and documentation changes are the ones that I fear the most...
best regards
Linus Björnstam
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, at 08:25, lloda wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> I don't understand the following change since at least one expression
> is required in these clauses.
>
> @lisp
> (@var{test} => @var{expression})
> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ result of the @code{cond}-expression.
> @var{key} may be any expression, and the @var{clause}s must have the form
>
> @lisp
> -((@var{datum1} @dots{}) @var{expr1} @var{expr2} @dots{})
> +((@var{datum1} @dots{}) @var{body} @dots{})
> @end lisp
>
> Regards
>
> Daniel
