Thanks for those comments. Yes, init could be better.
I'd never noticed the collision with english's awhile! And yes, I shouldn't introduce anaphora needlessly.
I did mean to bind result, that seems useful. old could perhaps be a uniq. (Update: I think I was following the precedent of orig in http://awwx.ws/extend)
I have to disagree on ret, though. It's short, and I'm a sucker for puns of all flavors.
Regarding callif: The comment at the top of arc.arc suggests consif isn't satisfactory to pg/rtm. if at start or end seems about equally pleasing. What I really want is for ifcall to suggest bound. Maybe trycall, but that evokes exceptions.
Yeah, ret isn't a bad name. And puns are okay. For example, I like the name whilet -- probably because I often do the same thing inadvertently while writing (i.e., adjoin the end of one word with the beginning of the next if they have the same letters). I just usually use ret for
(point ret
(while cond
(ret 5)))
Though I prefer full words if they're short, so I actually use return these days. I'd just need to get used to ret being a let instead of a return.
if at start or end seems about equally pleasing.
I don't really think if at the beginning conveys the same idea. The way I read it, if-something implies "if something, then do..."; but I read something-if as "if this thing, then something it". For instance, which looks clearer?
(if-empty xs
0
(+ 1 (len (cdr xs))))
vs
(empty-if xs
0
(+ 1 (len (cdr xs))))
I say the first, since I read it "if xs is empty, then...", whereas the second says "if xs, then empty it".
As it pertains to callif/ifcall, we mean to say "if var, then call it", which implies callif per the above.
The arc.arc comment seemed more about how consif and conswhen aren't distinguishable enough (how is "when" different from "if"?).
Ah, I just figured out you were referring to the CL return keyword inside loop (?). Something to mull, though it should be ok as long as arc doesn't get a loop keyword (a candidate name for forever)
