Re: REMF and REMPROP

[System Files <SYS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>]

Received: from AEROSPACE.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Feb 87  13:46:58 PST
Received: by aerospace.aero.org (5.51/6.0.GT)
	id AA05166; Fri, 6 Feb 87 12:03:54 PST
Posted-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 87 12:03:50 -0800
Message-Id: <8702062003.AA05166@aerospace.aero.org>
To: common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: REMF and REMPROP
In-Reply-To: Your message of 06 Feb 87  0659 PST.
             <8702061737.AA00893@aerospace.aero.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 87 12:03:50 -0800
From: coffee@aerospace.aero.org

Excuse me, but I was just answering barmar's question -- "Doesn't GET return
two values, the second indicating success or failure?" -- in the negative.
The quote from Winston was somewhat tongue in cheek, illustrating (1) the
extent to which this "Common Lisp" edition is really Common-compatible rather
than really teaching Common _per_se_, (2) the relative rarity of the use of
the optional DEFAULT argument to GET. Personally, I favor minimizing the cost
of property list implementation, leaving people to construct their own
A-List structures where a straightforward implementation of P-Lists doesn't
leave enough flexibility. This is the only "view" of mine that need be
represented, and then only if you care... ;-)
							Cheers - Pc^2