On 10/04/18 09:49, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: >> Thanks for pointing this out, Jörg. >> >> I think making this case *actually* undefined would be OK. In other >> words, treat it like a one-armed if or (cond-expand (else)). >> >> It might be nice to add a warning, too, but that's a bigger patch so we >> can start with this. Hackers, your thoughts? > > Sounds reasonable.
I think this is good, and doesn't need a warning. I think it could be a legitimate statement of intent to create an empty else when writing imperative-style code. (cond ((= guess target) (display "You guessed correctly!")) ((zero? guess) (display "You're not even trying!")) ((> guess 100) (display "C'mon, you know the number's never more than 100")) (else)) ;; in all other cases, do nothing It declares that an unhandled case is *meant* to do nothing, rather than being an omission on the part of the author. However, if others can think of likely situations where this is a mistake, I'll concede a warning :-) ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chickenfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers