[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposed definition of SUBST
- To: STEELE at CMU-20C
- Subject: Proposed definition of SUBST
- From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at Cmu-20c>
- Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1982 05:02:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp at SU-AI
Maybe the right move is to eliminate the :TEST-NOT option for SUBST.
All you really want here is some sort of equality test, so :TEST-NOT
makes no real sense here. Don't we have some precedents for this?
How about if we call the identity function IDENTITY ?
About REDUCE: I'm the one (or one of the ones) who complained about it
before, when we had 600 or so sequence functions and didn't need another
dozen. I now withdraw my former objection. I still think it's slightly
confusing, but any user who can digest lexical scoping is ready for