Re: "with" definedness check

[yary]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But for that there is "given". I thought the whole point of "with" vs.
> "given" was the definedness check.

Ah yes, and that's a great feature. I forgot that "with" skips over
the block when the topic is undefined, and that is very useful. I just
had some not-great examples in my REPL, and had forgotten it.

-y

Re: "with" definedness check

[Brandon Allbery]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:45 PM, yary <not@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen <l...@dijkmat.nl>
> wrote:
> > “with” is completely agnostic about what it is working on.  It merely
> checks for definedness and sets the topicalizer if so.
>
> Hmm- what's the  benefit of with's defined check? Seems like it makes
> "with" break if used with type objects.
>

But for that there is "given". I thought the whole point of "with" vs.
"given" was the definedness check.

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh   sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com  ballb...@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonadhttp://sinenomine.net