Proposed definition of SUBST

[Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at Cmu-20c>]

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
this.

-- Scott