Develop a desugaring of Scheme `cond` form into Verse

[nrnrnr]

This will make equivalent code more readable and save lots of writing else wrong.

[rogerburtonpatel]

See comment on issue #3, bullet 2.

[nrnrnr]

Is this still worth doing? I'm inclined to think so. Either it should be easy or it should expose issues that need to be exposed.

Knock it off before our next meeting?

[rogerburtonpatel]

Yes! Though, to be honest, I'm curious what exactly you mean by this.

My understanding is to have cond as a form with a keyword that allows for multiple branches and an implicit else wrong at the end. Do we not already have this with if ... fi?

Or, is it that if ... fi is sugar for nested ifs, and we need a proof of the desugaring?

Or, I'm missing something.

[rogerburtonpatel]

That said, a sample desugaring of cond now exists here. Let's discuss and see what's right and wrong with it on this thread.

[nrnrnr]

I think I must have been using cond as a synonym for if ... fi. (Perils of working with somebody who is not accustomed to saying when concrete syntax is and is not important.)

Your desugaring falls mostly into the category of "easy and knocked off." Except for one thing: I think it better to desugar directly into core Verse, not into if which is itself syntactic sugar.

I recommend you do that, declare victory, and close this issue.

[rogerburtonpatel]

⛳️