Re: emacs lisp syntax rfc: (cond (EXPR => (lambda (X) ...)))

[Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> wrote:
> In Scheme, the expression:
>
>  (cond (EXPR => (lambda (X) ...)))
>
> provides the lambda expression parameter X with the non-false
> value computed from evaluating EXPR.  However, if EXPR evaluates
> to false, control falls through to the next ‘cond’ clause, as
> usual.  The syntax requires the symbol ‘=>’ between EXPR and the
> lambda expression, without which the non-false value is discarded
> (i.e., the status quo).

To tell you the truth the implies looks not very pretty. I would
rather that emacs is made into lexically scoped lisp like CL than
these teeni changes. Just write the whole thingy like CL. This will
increase the number of people who can help newbies in lisp as there is
only one lisp, the CL. This kind of drastic transition would be easier
than any other.

> What do people think of adding this to Emacs Lisp?  (I would be
> grateful for pointers to any previous discussion on the matter.)

Thien, I would be grateful if you can finish and not STALL the
previous thread where you put an inkomplet reply. I have given my
opinion and hope it helps.

Franz Xe