Re: Problem with cond macro.

[Keith Wright]

> From: Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden>
> Well, I'm not sure I understand all of this:  What about the following:
> 
> (define => #f)
> (cond (#t => 'ok))
> 
> Should this also deliver 'ok ?  It doesn't seem to with the current
> implementation of syncase.

A tricky question to be sure.  I would say "Yes", but would
listen quietly if Guy Steele had anything to say about it.
It doesn't surprise me that syncase does not get it right, it
was grafted on rather late in the game and still doesn't fit
quite right.  The => syntax in COND is a strange wart in
Scheme and there is a strong temptation to handle it
with special case code deep in the interpreter, rather
than write code for the general case which has only one
instance.

Among the several bugs, misfeatures, and holes in Guile,
I don't think this is one of the more important.

-- 
     -- Keith Wright  <address@hidden>

Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
         ---  Food, Shelter, Source code.  ---