subst-if-not and nsubst-if-not, programming folk-lore

[David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 10:30 EDT
    From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>

	Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 19:42 EDT
	From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
	...
	Now, when one tries subst-if-not, one gets a small surprise until one
	thinks about it a bit:

	    (let* ((item-list '(numbers (1.0 2 5/3) symbols (foo bar)))
		   (new (subst-if-not '3.1415 #'numberp item-list)))
	      (values new item-list))
	    => 3.1415
	       (NUMBERS (1.0 2 5/3) SYMBOLS (FOO BAR))

    How about
	(let* ((item-list '(numbers (1.0 2 5/3) symbols (foo bar)))
	       (new (subst-if-not '3.1415
				  #'(lambda (x) (or (numberp x) (listp x)))
				  item-list)))
	  (values new item-list))
    ?

Sure, we can all find the right solution once we see the pitfall.  My
point is to document the pitfall so people are less surprised when it
happens to them.

    [I tried to test this, but there appears to be a trivial bug in the
    Symbolics 3600 release 6.1 implementation of SUBST-IF-NOT.]

[Recently fixed.  Somebody should write a program to analyze mail coming
out of vendors to track what areas of the software system the vendors
are working on...]

	What the person probably wanted is to replace the non-null atomic
	leafs.  I'm not sure what to think.  One thing I'm thinking is that
	(n)subst-if-not is too counter-intuitive to be worth having in the
	language, even for completeness.  At the very list, I think the
	book/manual should carefully discuss this issue to people don't get
	confused for years.

    At the very LIST, you say?
So I did.  A recent typo I made was "If you are trying to confuse me,
you are goind a good job."
    --Guy
--