On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:32:59AM +0100, TONYMS wrote:
> > Granted, there is still some point in warning about
> > (ECASE X
> > (1 "ONE")
> > (2 "TWO")
> > (OTHERWISE "MANY"))
> > However, to do it, while avoiding spurious warnings like the one
> > removed in the original patch, seems to require a considerable amount
> > of clutter in our system code to catch a not terribly subtle user
> > misunderstanding.
> In this um case, what should the warning be? That the user has written
> an otherwise clause which ecase, unlike case, doesn't have any special
> behaviour for? If the clause were (T "MANY"), would we also warn?
> > So maybe just blow it away?
> Seems ok to me, since I've never been bitten by this particular one :),
> but others may have different opinions.
OK, I merged it.
Thank you for pointing out the problem; I hope this will turn out to
be a satisfactory solution.
As I wrote in the comments in the patch, having thought about it for a
while I still think it's probably tolerable to let people catch this
error for themselves. It's not something that's difficult for humans
to check, and the alternative of having the computer check looks
fundamentally difficult in the usual DWIM-complete way.
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me; for it is your
duty to tolerate truth. But when I am the stronger I shall persecute
you; for it is my duty to persecute error. -- Thomas Macaulay