[Openmcl-devel] Shortcircuiting of argument evaluation in #'<

Tom Emerson tremerson at gmail.com
Wed Jan 9 08:01:53 PST 2013

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ron Garret <ron at flownet.com> wrote:
> IMO this is a bug in the spec, not CCL.  (< a b c ...) ought to mean (and (< a b) (< b c) ...)

By which I assume you mean the definition of the comparison operators
in 12.2, where, "[t]he value of < is true if the numbers are in
monotonically increasing order; otherwise it is false." To short
circuit wouldn't #'< need to become a special operator? Otherwise its
behavior will be different from every other function.

> Putting side-effecting code inside a comparison operator is a Truly Horrible Idea[.]



Tom Emerson
tremerson at gmail.com

More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list