Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions

["Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>]

I think that the definition on page 247 is what seemed intuitive to the
designers at the time, probably reflecting some pre-existing practice in
some system or other.  Your view of the proper order is an interesting
one, but doesn't seem to be universal, and nobody argued this point of
view at the time.  My intuition tends to go in the opposite direction:
typep seems backwards to me, because I view the function and type
argument as being a sort of composite function that is then applied to
the thing being investigated.  I agree that it is unfortunate that typep
and the :test keyword don't match, but as you point out there are ways
around this.

Yes, lots of code would have to be changed (in a trivial way) if we
switched this around now.  I think that an incompatible change like this
has no chance of passing if the reason is just someone's view that the
order of arguments would be more intuitive if switched around.

-- Scott