From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Brockman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: constant `e' Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:37:19 +0100 Message-ID: <871wkv6rk0.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> References: <87ireah6ia.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <854ppu8k1l.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87y7n6fdod.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <45328.128.165.123.18.1171307877.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1171312672 1749 80.91.229.12 (12 Feb 2007 20:37:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:37:52 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 12 21:37:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HGhvo-0004n4-ES for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:37:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGhvn-0006Tv-S4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:37:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HGhva-0006TO-Tt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:37:34 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HGhvZ-0006TC-A3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:37:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGhvZ-0006T9-4S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:37:33 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HGhvY-0005Mz-Hh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:37:32 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HGhvX-0003xi-5T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:37:31 +0100 Original-Received: from c-a4fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([85.226.254.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:37:31 +0100 Original-Received: from daniel by c-a4fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:37:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 48 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-a4fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se X-Face: :&2UWGm>e24)ip~'K@iOsA&JT3JX*v@1-#L)=dUb825\Fwg#`^N!Y*g-TqdS AevzjFJe96f@V'ya8${57/T'"mTd`1o{TGYhHnVucLq!D$r2O{IN)7>.0op_Y`%r;/Q +(]`3F-t10N7NF\.Mm0q}p1:%iqTi:5]1E]rDF)R$9.!,Eu'9K':y9^U3F8UCS1M+A$ 8[[[WT^`$P[vu>P+8]aQMh9giu&fPCqLW2FSsGs User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Ekg2I/noouYkgDhwFha28emYJ0= X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66309 Archived-At: "Stuart D. Herring" writes: >> The `case' macro already allows `otherwise'. That's a >> pretty compelling reason to allow it in `cond' as well. >> (Yes, I know `case' is in the `cl' library, but lots of >> people use that library --- at least its macros.) > > The `case' macro allows it because t is already a special case there (case > clauses are not conditions), and so giving it an unusual name reduces the > surprise. In `cond', each clause by definition begins with an expression > evaluated as a condition. Any problems whatsoever in immediately and > fully understanding the function of t in such a circumstance are so > fundamental that they -should- be called out by the syntax and addressed > rather than allowed to continue by an English-like special case. That is a straw man. Nobody is confused about what `t' means in a `cond' clause and nobody would be if `otherwise' were introduced. Come on, this is basic stuff. > (Imagine what would happen if someone, perhaps to shush > the byte-compiler, set `otherwise' to nil, and how much > worse if the person debugging thought that `case' treated > that symbol specially!) Yes, wouldn't that be a crazy idea! Now imagine what would happen if 1 + 5 were equal to 12. That's right. Mixing juice would get you twice as much. There's no reason why `otherwise' couldn't be a special case in the `cond' macro, as it is in `case'. > I am sure that not everyone agrees with my thoughts on the matter, and > that there are good arguments against them, but it is my general > contention that programmers would do well spending more time learning > their languages and tools and less time divising clever tricks in an > attempt to make such learning unnecessary for others. The tricks > typically succeed in preventing the learning but not in transcending it. I don't aim to make learning unnecessary for others. The simple and embarrasing truth is that I think `otherwise' looks pretty. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Everyone else disagrees. I shut up. End of thread. -- Daniel Brockman