William James
7/23/2015 8:51:00 PM
Erik Naggum wrote:
> (whereas ((expr-1 (whatever-1))
> (expr-2 (whatever-2)))
> (something-using-expr-1-and/or-expr-2))
>
> Reading it like the standard contract legalese, the key idea is that all
> prior forms are true when an expression in the binding forms is evaluated
> (just like the operator `and') and prior variable are bound to the (true)
> value of each prior expression. The body is an implicit `progn' that can
> thus rely on all of these forms having non-nil values.
Gauche Scheme:
(and-let* ((a (assoc 'bar '((foo . 33) (bar . 44))))
(b (cdr a)))
b)
===>
44
(and-let* ((a (assoc 'who '((foo . 33) (bar . 44))))
(b (cdr a)))
b)
===>
#f
--
In Stockholm ... 20 Muslim men ... began to assault the children, ripping their
swimsuits off.... [T]he men cornered one of the [11-year-old] girls in a
grotto in the bathhouse and gang-raped her. The police refused to press any
charges. www.liveleak.com/view?i=807_1369627137