Oh, no, as far as a "does it work out of the box" experiment goes, it fails. Racket doesn't even compile. I meant more along the lines of our immutable-cons experiment, where we fix a bunch of code and see how problematic the compatibility issue becomes over time.
Carl Eastlund On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM, J. Ian Johnson <i...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > This experiment should be easy to run, no? Change the default cond and run > DrDr? > -Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carl Eastlund" <c...@ccs.neu.edu> > To: "Racket Developers" <dev@racket-lang.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:52:38 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [racket-dev] Falling through cond clauses > > > I often wish cond would raise an exception if all the tests failed and > there were no else clause. I have taken to writing a macro to enforce this; > I usually call it cond!. The void default for cond seems like an > un-Racketish holdover from primarily-imperative programming. With some of > the other changes we've made in Racket, are we willing to consider changing > the fall-through behavior of cond? It seems like an experiment worth > running to me. > > If not, I would at least like to add an erroring version of cond somewhere > in the language. It's a shame to have to keep writing such a primitive > feature. Right now in my dracula github repo I have cond! implemented in > racket/cond and re-exported from racket, but I'm not thrilled about either > the location or the name. I kept it out of racket/base so I could depend on > the syntax collection for good source location reporting in the error > message. > > Carl Eastlund > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
