On 2020-07-10 16:39 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> A better implementation would be (maybe-if m j n) => (if (maybe? m)
> (if (just? m) j n) (error "...")).
>
> Note that this better implementation even conforms to the current
> wording in SRFI 189.

Not meaning to extend an already dense thread, I'm still going to
jump in here.  I don't think that an implementation of maybe-if (or
the other other SRFI 189 macros) using assume conforms to the current
spec.  Namely, it isn't stated anywhere in SRFI 145 that an object
raised by assume satisfies error-object?.  (On the strength of this, I
did some work yesterday to make the macro implementations into more
unassuming code, using error throughout.)  Is this interpretation
correct, or would assume be acceptable here?

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"In the military more is not better." --_Sun Tzu_