On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> > I think it's dangerous to leave it as it is. For example:
> >
> > #;3> (and-let* (((or #f #t))) 1);; correct
> > 1
> > #;4> (and-let* ((or #f #t)) 1) ;; WRON
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> I think it's dangerous to leave it as it is. For example:
>
> #;3> (and-let* (((or #f #t))) 1);; correct
> 1
> #;4> (and-let* ((or #f #t)) 1) ;; WRONG! -> a stricter syntax
> would catch this error
> #f
I agree this t
Michele La Monaca scripsit:
> This nonsense seems to be valid syntax:
>
> #;1> (and-let* ((foobar 1 2 3)) foobar)
I grabbed the Chibi definition and translated it into Chicken. Unfortunately,
(use and-let) does not override the core definition for some reason.
Here it is with and-let* changed t
This nonsense seems to be valid syntax:
#;1> (and-let* ((foobar 1 2 3)) foobar)
1
2 and 3 are not even evaluated as the following example demonstrates:
#;2> (and-let* ((foobar 1 (sleep 100))) foobar)
1
I think it's dangerous to leave it as it is. For example:
#;3> (and-let* (((or #f #t))) 1)
