Hi John Yes...you're right...I was using an (if (or (stop test 1) (stop test 2)) (do nothing) (do all the stuff) but your "unless" is much more direct. Hi Alex Yes I like that a lot! Thank you both for your further help. Best Regards Dean
On 19 January 2017 at 17:02, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:50:00PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote: > > Note that (setq Do_it NIL) is (off Do_it), and you could also use an > 'or' for > > the two equal consequences. Then the above becomes: > > > > (setq > > Pg_bks 7 > > Lns_from_top 6 > > Do_it T ) > > (case 2 > > (1 (prinl "in 1")) > > (2 > > (cond > > ((or (> 2 Pg_blks) (> 6 Lns_from_top)) > > (off Do_it) ) > > (Do_it > > (prinl "yes doing a") > > (prinl "yes doing b") > > (prinl "yes doing c") ) ) ) ) > > > Normally, of course, you will use 'let' instead of 'setq': > > (let (Pg_bks 7 Lns_from_top 6 Do_it T) > (case 2 > (1 (prinl "in 1")) > (2 > (cond > ((or (> 2 Pg_blks) (> 6 Lns_from_top)) > (off Do_it) ) > (Do_it > (prinl "yes doing a") > (prinl "yes doing b") > (prinl "yes doing c") ) ) ) ) ) > > ♪♫ Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe >
