There is a possibility to make everyone happy: we may just consider this feature to be optional, for example, introduce sb-ext:*extended-bq-syntax* variable which determines the availability of the new syntax. Obviously, by default it should be NIL.


2010/6/17 Andy Hefner <>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler <> wrote:

> If you put yourself into that situation, would you
> still argue for
>  ,@(spleen (foop) (generate-frobber x y))
> over
>  ,?(when (foop) (generate-frobber x y))
> If you still do, I'll just silently despair in non-belief. :-)

Really? I'd choose the path of least resistance. The former requires
one defmacro and ten seconds typing, while the latter involves
patching SBCL after a protracted mailing list discussion. Such an
overriding aesthetic sensibility might be worthy of Apple itself (who,
fittingly, have had great success with their own resurrected '80s
programming language), but problematic in a community that can't
achieve any momentum toward or consensus on what a post-ANSI CL
(versus post-ANSI-CL) world might look like. :)

ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
lucky parental unit.  See the prize list and enter to win:
Sbcl-devel mailing list