Re: isn't computation-rules redundant?
Alex Shinn 26 Mar 2004 05:22 UTC
At Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:26:51 +0900, alex wrote:
> [...] The following is easier to read and to teach
>
> (define-syntax-computations and ()
> () #f
> (x) x
> (x y z ...) (if x (and y z ...) #f))
... and both versions are easier to read if you actually include the
"and" in the LHS, sorry about that:
(define-syntax-computations and ()
(and) #f
(and x) x
(and x y z ...) (if x (and y z ...) #f))
The abbreviation could work but I think the longer version reads better.
Also the following indentation style works in this case, but in general
won't look so pretty for complex macros:
(define-syntax-computations and ()
(and) #f
(and x) x
(and x y z ...) (if x (and y z ...) #f))
--
Alex