2012/11/8 Ben Wolfson
> Is that true? I mean, lots of uses of condp I see have the p be =, and
> this came up for me precisely because I was using a map as the test in
> cond. In any case, when it *is* useful, it's pretty useful.
= is a point in case:
(condp = foo
bar :>> #(using-foo-identit
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Herwig Hochleitner
wrote:
>
> Occasionally I had found found something like that useful, but more often
> than not you'd just get booleans when binding the result of a cond test
> (this is different to condp).
Is that true? I mean, lots of uses of condp I see have
2012/11/8 Ben Wolfson
> A message in early 2010 notes that there had been some discussion of
> adding support for :>> to cond, but I suppose nothing came of
> that---does anyone know why or if it's still something that might
> happen?
Occasionally I had found found something like that useful, b
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Moritz Ulrich wrote:
> What should :>> do? For me, it looks awfully like the operator mess they
> have in Scala and Haskell.
It should do the same thing :>> already does in condp, and that =>
does in Scheme's cond.
--
Ben Wolfson
"Human kind has used its intelli
What should :>> do? For me, it looks awfully like the operator mess they
have in Scala and Haskell.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> A message in early 2010 notes that there had been some discussion of
> adding support for :>> to cond, but I suppose nothing came of
> that---
A message in early 2010 notes that there had been some discussion of
adding support for :>> to cond, but I suppose nothing came of
that---does anyone know why or if it's still something that might
happen?
--
Ben Wolfson
"Human kind has used its intelligence to vary the flavour of drinks,
which ma
