On Jan 24, 2008 3:20 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rupert.swarbrick at lineone.net>
wrote:
> Yes, that is what I meant. It was just an example of where Ithink
> large hunks of identical code could be made slightly more transparent -
> after all, a macro called say "caar-is-p" or a better name would apply
> to quite a few of them.
>
You mean, replace
(defmfun mplusp (x) (and (not (atom x)) (eq (caar x) 'mplus)))
with
(defmfun mplusp (x) (caar-is-p x 'mplus))
or replace
...((mplusp expr)...)
with
...((caar-is-p expr 'mplus) ...)
Either of these seems quite pointless.
-s