[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
:otherwise in selectq
- To: kmp@MIT-OZ.ARPA
- Subject: :otherwise in selectq
- From: "David A. Moon" <Moon%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 83 16:24 EST
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- References: The message of 11 Nov 83 14:41-EST from David Chapman <Zvona at MIT-OZ>
I'm not sure why Kent redistributed the enclosed message, since several
people had already replied to it pointing out the nonsensicalness of the
third paragraph, and I (and maybe others?) had already replied to it
explaining that magic syntactic words in special forms, such as OTHERWISE,
are treated like function names rather than as keywords.
Date: Friday, 11 November 1983, 14:41-EST
From: David Chapman <Zvona at MIT-OZ>
To: lisp-designers at SCRC-TENEX
Cc: kmp at MIT-OZ
ReSent-date: Sat 12 Nov 83 14:17:38-EST
It seems bogus to me that I can't write :otherwise in a selectq.
I think that :otherwise should be required. There are reasonable
arguments against this. However, I can't see arguments against
:otherwise being *allowed*. If the idea is that it doesn't matter what
package the ``magic keyword'' (what are these things called, anyway?) is
in, then that should extend to the keyword package, too. Unless we are
moving toward the view that keywords aren't really symbols.
Speaking of which: Why are keywords bound to themselves? Why not
rather have EVAL and the compiler special-case them as self-quoting?
(Presumably the compiler already does this for T and NIL.) Surely this
would be less overhead.