From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-relay-2.mv.us.adobe.com ([130.248.1.2]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2237>; Wed, 26 May 1993 15:14:00 -0400
Received: by mail-relay-2.mv.us.adobe.com; id AA28192; Wed, 26 May 93 10:23:54 -0700
Received: by astro.mv.us.adobe.com; id AA01005; Wed, 26 May 93 10:24:51 -0700
Date:	Wed, 26 May 1993 13:24:51 -0400
From:	haahr@mv.us.adobe.com (Paul Haahr)
Message-Id: <9305261724.AA01005@astro.mv.us.adobe.com>
To:	richard@harlequin.co.uk
Subject: Re:  else if not (Re: wishlist)
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu

> The if/else `problem' has always struck me as really stupid.

the only if/else problem in rc is that it's not compatible with td's rc.
the reason is that if not semantics are awful, as is acknowledged in the
rc paper.  Byron introduced this one change because he thought it was an
improvement worth being incompatible with the plan 9 version.  i agree
with him; the last time we hashed this out on the list it seemed that
was the consensus.

> BCPL and
> LISP get it right.

that's a matter of opinion.  Byron and i picked scheme's cond semantics
for es, because we thought that was right.

paul