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

[Brad Miller <miller@UR-ACORN.ARPA>]

    Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 19:42 EDT
    From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    These are really neat functions, and counterintuitive to boot.  One of
    our documentation people tried this:

	[...]

    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))

    and nsubst-if-not gives the same thing
	
	[...]

    , i.e., the list is NOT destructed.  A careful reading explains why: the
    item-list is indeed not a number, and therefore it gets substituted (but
    you can't substitute the entire list, so you don't modify it).

    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.

Good point. To point out the obvious: perhaps [n]subst-if-not should not
try to match subtrees? (which would include nil cdrs).....
That would still give a useful function on leaves.... Your example would
have been evaluated to:
	(3.1415 (1.0 2 5/3) 3.1415 (3.1415 3.1415))
which is a bit more intuitive, I think, though not precisely an inverse
to subst-if, which as you suggested, can be quite non-intuitive (and
perhaps unnecessary)....

Brad Miller
miller@rochester.arpa
miller@ur-acorn.arpa