[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
- To: Common-Lisp @ SU-AI
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP @ MIT-MC>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1983 22:48:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: The message of Thu, 29 Dec 83 22:00-EST from "David A. Moon" <Moon%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA>
If this is really still subject to interpretation, I encourage the
shared-structure approach.
For the simple cases, it would be best not to scare people away from
using these set operations because they believe them to be too
inefficient. Odds are you wouldn't feel as bad about the possible
redundant consing in (COPYLIST (UNION X Y)) if you need a full copy
as you would feel about the unnecessary consing in (UNION X Y) if you
didn't want a full copy.
In general, I think the burden should be on those who want to do
side-effects to assure that they have taken appropriate safety
precautions.
Also, writing (COPYLIST (UNION X Y)) makes an important assumption
explicit in the code. If (UNION X Y) is always copying, it is harder to
tell from inspection when the programmer plans to take advantage of
the fact.
-kmp