Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by akkartik 4945 days ago | link | parent

The point is that consif isn't a good name. It isn't obvious what the condition is, and it isn't obvious that it returns b if the condition isn't met. conswhen is even more egregious since its connection to consif is totally different from if vs when.


1 point by Pauan 4944 days ago | link

Sure, and it's great that we can generalize the behavior into `maybe`, but if the problem is the bad names then we should come up with better names.

-----

1 point by akkartik 4944 days ago | link

Yeah, I couldn't think of anything better than maybe, and I'd love to find something better.

-----

3 points by rocketnia 4943 days ago | link

The name of 'pushnew isn't bad at all, so how about the names "construe" for 'consif and "conscheck" for 'conswhen? They would be cousins to the hypothetical 'pushtrue, 'pushcheck, and 'consnew.

The name of 'maybe could be... um... "combinetrue".

-----

3 points by rocketnia 4943 days ago | link

As far as "let :provided" goes, I'm thinking "checklet":

  (let x init
    (when (f x)
      ...body...))
  ==>
  (checklet x f init
    ...body...)
Implementation:

  (def fn-checklet (test x body)
    (test&body x))
  (mac checklet (var test x . body)
    `(fn-checklet ,test ,x (fn (,var) ,@body)))

-----

3 points by rocketnia 4943 days ago | link

"how about the names "construe" for 'consif"

Whoops, "construe" is an English word. XD Better call it "cons-true".

-----

2 points by Pauan 4942 days ago | link

Or for more confusion we can call it "const" as in "cons-t" :P

-----