Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?

[David Kastrup]

Alex Shinn <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to argue in favor of supporting (begin), (cond), (case-lambda)
>> and other such degenerate forms, for the same reason that we support
>> (*), (+), and (let () ...).
>>
>> First of all: Is there any compelling reason not to support them?
>> I can't think of one.  Can you?  If so, please do tell.
>
> 1. portability - these extensions may not work on other
> implementations.

So what?

> 2. the fact that these may be indicators or broken macros.

So may (+).

-- 
David Kastrup