Subject: Re: Little doubts with "if" clause From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 20:13:16 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3216312794772355@naggum.net> * Coby Beck | You've never been in my kill-file! My mistake -- I thought had said you did, once. My apologies. | I guess it was mostly the passive tense "it is advised" phrase that made | me want to point out that is hardly a universal axiom of IF that more | than on form in a branch means it should be a COND. I hope style is not considered "axiomatic" anywhere. * Erik Naggum > The lack of an implicit progn in the if form is a hint that cond, which > has an implicit progn for each branch, would be more appropriately used > for bodies with side-effects and if for expressions. | This is a strong argument, though one more from tradition than other | stylistic concerns. | I still like the strong visual signal an IF form gives you that there are | two and only two branches. That seems like a reasonable rationale, but it appears to me (i.e., pretty weak certainy) that most of the uses have one branch with a single form, like return or error, and the other a larger body of something. I tend to use one-branch conditionals and know that that branch terminates the function or asks the operator to fix an error -- sometimes one can turn an error into a continuable error, then the function should not simply error out | Variety is the spice of life, I like very much that lisp provides so many | ways to express your code. I second that. /// -- The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.