I think this a great change for a future `racket2' (someone should be keeping a list of these), but it's too incompatible a change for `cond' in `racket'.
At Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:52:38 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: > 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
