Re: Bugs in newly added completion capabilities.

[Miles Bader]

Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes, but let me first make sure I understand.  Is the reason that we
> do not want _any_ symbol as car of the list that forbidding _any_
> symbol as car of the list actually seems _more natural_ than just
> forbidding lambda?  It seems that any symbol other than lambda can not
> be mistaken for the car of an anonymous lambda expresion and hence
> could not lead to ambiguity.

One possible reason is that if we allow almost all symbol lists, people
will tend to overlook the need for a `lambda' special case, write their
code to use straight-forward symbol lists -- and odd bugs will arise
when lambda does happen to occur at the beginning of such a list.

Always requiring an initial "" forces the problem to be dealt with, so
will make such code more robust.

-Miles
-- 
97% of everything is grunge