[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Happy Flag Day
- To: Moon%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-ML@SU-DSN
- Subject: Re: Happy Flag Day
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-ML@SU-DSN>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1983 11:49:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI
- In-reply-to: The message of Wednesday, 15 June 1983, 02:21-EDT from David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC>
Received: from SCRC-SPANIEL by SCRC-TENEX with CHAOS; Wed 15-Jun-83 02:22:19-EDT
Received: from SCRC-EUPHRATES by SCRC-SPANIEL with CHAOS; Wed 15-Jun-83 02:21:52-EDT
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1983 06:21:00 -0000
From: David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC>
Subject: Re: Happy Flag Day
To: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG at SCRC>
Cc: Common-Lisp at SU-AI
In-reply-to: The message of 14 Jun 83 23:36-EDT from Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC at SU-DSN>
Date: 14 Jun 1983 2336-EDT
From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>
Leave SUBST (historical reasons) and fix SUBSTITUTE &c.
But (p. 182)
SUBST new old tree &key :test :test-not :key
SUBST-IF predicate new tree &key :key
So historical reasons make no sense. No one proposes to make
the args to SUBST be old first then new.
I can live with whichever Guy decides to change (SUBST-IF or
SUBSTITUTE-IF) as long as he makes them consistent.
OK, I believe this.