Re: humble proposal: New special form progn-1

[Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]



On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:

> On 2016-07-27 08:16, Tino Calancha wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> i got this idea few days ago (see the patch at the end).
>>
>> Even though I envision that no one here will like this proposal,
>> for me it's instructive to learn from your answers why this is
>> not a good idea.
>
> :) I don't have anything strongly against it myself. Any reason to not make it a lisp macro though?
>
>> My (weak) motivation for introduce this is:
>>
>> * Compact (and familiar) syntaxis.
>> * Same reasons to exists as prog2 has (excluding historical reasons).
>> * Other way to acomplish one usual task.
>> * Allow lower indentation level (see below):
>
> Sounds good. One worry that I have with the name is that I read it as (progn)-(1), not prog(n-1).
You mean that could confuse some people that is like:
(1- (progn (form)))
I still like progn-1 more because naturally fit in the sequence:
prog1, prog2, ..., progn


> Wouldn't
> (progn
>  (form1)
>  ...
>  (formN-2)
>  (prog1
>    (formN-1)
>    (formN)))
> work?
Of course does.  I didn't claim i exhausted the casuistic :-)
Thank you!

Tino