Carl Mäsak

> I'm not 100% sure what you're refering to here? Just making sure it's _not_ the case that the Lisp advantages you like to highlight are blindingly obviously mappable onto...

> Hopefully you'll forgive some bikeshed coloring suggestions. Consider yourself forgiven. And please forgive me in turn for answering somewhat selectively, where I feel I have something to say. Feel...

@patzim, it's interesting that you point this out... because this issue thread has essentially concluded the same thing. And not just that it's traditional, but that it's _necessary_ to front-load...

> Will the unquote type info in [vendethiel's translation of the macro from Graham's "On Lisp"](https://github.com/masak/007/issues/30#issuecomment-225589362) be elided in practice when 007 informed features are back ported to Perl 6?...

Going to block this one on #385, because I don't want it to scope-creep.

Very closely resembles the semantics of #244, which is not a macro. Still, there might be room for both.

What would be an idiomatic way to _both_ `delete` (#290) an element _and_ check if it `exists`, um, existed? Without breaking the Single Evaluation Rule? tl;dr: No, seems not. But...

Coming back to the above musing: there doesn't seem to be a way to do this _without_ making `delete` and `exists` suspiciously aware of each other. Or, alternatively, inventing an...

Oh, and just like in #290, we could use safe navigation with `exists` and make "earlier" missing parts of the path an error. With `delete`, the behavior was just to...

Coming back to this issue, and reacting to my earlier confused musings about `exists delete` and `delete exists`: * Forbid `exists delete `. If it worked, and evaluated things in...