On 2016-07-27 08:16, Tino Calancha wrote:
Dear all,
i got this idea few days ago (see the patch at the end).
Even though I envision that no one here will like this proposal,
for me it's instructive to learn from your answers why this is
not a good idea.
:) I don't have anything strongly against it myself. Any reason to not make it
a lisp macro though?
My (weak) motivation for introduce this is:
* Compact (and familiar) syntaxis.
* Same reasons to exists as prog2 has (excluding historical reasons).
* Other way to acomplish one usual task.
* Allow lower indentation level (see below):
Sounds good. One worry that I have with the name is that I read it as
(progn)-(1), not prog(n-1).