|switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-06)|
|Re: switch statement generation email@example.com (1994-04-07)|
|switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-07)|
|Re: switch statement generation email@example.com (1994-04-10)|
|Re: switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-11)|
|Re: switch statement generation email@example.com (1994-04-13)|
|Re: switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-14)|
|Re: switch statement generation chase@Think.COM (1994-04-15)|
|From:||email@example.com (Christopher Hoover)|
|Organization:||School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon|
|Date:||Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:41:21 GMT|
Michael Spertus <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>I would like to see the keyword nodefault: added to switch statements.
Common Lisp has both CASE and ECASE. CASE is similar to C's switch
statement. ECASE is like CASE except that no explicit ``default:'' clause
is permitted, and if no clause is matched an error is signalled.
Henry Spencer <email@example.com> wrote:
>These are actually two separate notions, and arguably should not be
>bundled into the same construct. I dimly recall at least one language
>that had an "assert" statement (meaning "I think this is true here, let me
>know if you discover it's not") and an "assume" statement (meaning "this
>is true here, for sure, whether it looks that way or not, and you may rely
>on it for optimization or assertion checking").
Common Lisp has both of these notions. The ASSERT macro gives you the
moral equivalent of C's assert macro as found in <assert.h>. Common Lisp
declarations on the other hand usually tell the compiler to assume certain
things -- often things it cannot otherwise figure out.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.