From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Code for cond* Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 06:32:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <86a97153-94eb-4df4-b135-4127d2a00057@alphapapa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="faOUhdJ7cmKDrVBK" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35629"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 22 06:33:14 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rRmvp-00090m-MG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 06:33:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRmv7-0000mH-QM; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:32:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRmv4-0000ik-E7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:32:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRmv2-0002My-EB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:32:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=cY4BiwSgFRfpbzswDZM5BVLUsxBaJjVlwFxTUaLM0xQ=; b=cF9Mvne+sGU8rbfvePiJ/xQnig lsgI7dAeHbqmHUPTudIxTDqvYKrHdD3TCgWCXUs4FOnk1PbJnstTLutflvuTxwmvxrM1/P5ogD+UJ eKscFJr9fy9pVZ9S9psLycUZnzvq46Yazc0JeyIEGHoqWf+JUSem7CJquMGYI/tcIT+hFeQRsNiJI aXq0ZHzPtv2Oawl7ph0PuIaWoywssC/qJ7taZiMCny6gmP3bAoMQEMG5cBzKL1MGStIzTMa/pyaiH tSYxiE1QXplKp5QFNvYR+TSrwmljNJisRqazLZGmcJrtTZweVBfVrkPfqDgeTme5V1R2ez9LJoXLk RlYd4zYQ==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rRmuy-0001EK-HY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 06:32:20 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86a97153-94eb-4df4-b135-4127d2a00057@alphapapa.net> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:315201 Archived-At: --faOUhdJ7cmKDrVBK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 02:05:24PM -0600, Adam Porter wrote: > Dear Richard, [...] > * "making bindings that cover the rest of the body...the ability to make > bindings and continue with further clauses" >=20 > As several here have mentioned, this is not universally perceived as an > advance. It can easily lead to ambiguity and cause confusion. It is not > very "Lispy" (similarly to cl-loop, where the bounds of its bindings are > ultimately contained at the top level, but can be introduced without > explicit or obvious bounds). I agree on this one. This is the single feature which would confuse me most: more and more I expect bindings to "stay whithin their lexical context" with little exceptions. This would be one more. Cheers --=20 t --faOUhdJ7cmKDrVBK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCZa393QAKCRAFyCz1etHa RnBOAJ9ti7sjimU1USCmvMnBIG+Ihh10lwCfbsopzcnM4ThBfglKLl23J8v0HtQ= =g2V+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --faOUhdJ7cmKDrVBK--