Content deleted Content added
Attempt at defining cond |
nope |
||
Line 100:
This assumes eq returns either true or false as defined above. -- [[User:P3d0|P3d0]] 15:24, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What I mean is this. Suppose you attempt to define cond in the following way:
(defun cond (x) blahblahblah)
where blahblahblah stands for whatever you need to do with the argument x to get cond to work properly. However cunningly you attempt define this function, it would not be able to handle, e.g.,
(cond (misc-variable-name 1))
This is because, since <code>cond</code> is defined as a normal Lisp function, the Lisp interpreter attempts to evaluate <code>(misc-variable-name 1)</code>. This is a no-op, because <code>misc-variable-name</code> is not the name of a function. That's why cond is called a "special form" - its syntax is handled specially by the interpreter. -- [[User:CYD|CYD]]
| |||