Re: Code for cond*

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> Its current meaning is the right meaning.

I see fundamentally two decisions in the design:

- Whether the "lax"ness applies only to the final cdr.
- Whether the "lax"ness applies also to the (final) cdrs of nested lists.

Any evidence to substantiate this wild claim that your choices (which
answer yes to both questions, AFAICT) are The Right Ones?

IMO, there is no right or wrong answer here, only answers
which are more often or less often useful.  I gave an argument why
"yes" may not be the best answer.  Could you at least give me some hint
of cases you've seen where your choices are the ones we need?

> I believe that it IS documented in these lines.
>
>     (cdr PATTERN)  matches PATTERN with strict checking of cdrs.
>       That means that `list' patterns verify that the final cdr is nil.
>       Strict checking is the default.
>     (cdr-safe PATTERN)  matches PATTERN with lax checking of cdrs.
>       That means that `list' patterns do not examine the final cdr.

I guess the "final cdr is nil" does, indeed, thanks.
So it's not "all cdrs" it's "the final cdrs".
It would be good to find a name that conveys this more clearly.
Maybe `lax-list-ends`?


        Stefan