[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>*Subject*: Extension to MAP*From*: Robert W. Kerns <RWK@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>*Date*: Sat, 21 Mar 87 04:47 EST*Cc*: VERACSD@A.ISI.EDU, common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, veracsd.rs@A.ISI.EDU*In-reply-to*: <870320170530.1.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 87 17:05 EST From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Date: 20 Mar 1987 16:24-EST From: VERACSD@A.ISI.EDU I'd really like to see MAP take a sequence as its first argument, and have the results be put into that sequence. The first N elements of the sequence would be modified where N is the min of the lengths of the argument sequences, (including the sequence passed as the first arg). This seems upward-compatible and easy to implement, and would be extremely handy. Any comments? It sounds like a good idea, but what if the sequence is () ? I'm not sure which objection you're making, so I'll clarify by generalizing it twice. 1) Generalize this to "What if the sequence is shorter than the number of times the mapped function would otherwise be called?" 2) Generalize this to "What if the sequence is (array t)?" The first interpretation is a trivial design decision, but the second is a fatal flaw in the scheme. I suspect this is really the point you were trying to make: some sequences already have meaning in that context.

**References**:**Extension to MAP***From:*David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Extension to MAP** - Next by Date:
**Extension to MAP** - Previous by thread:
**Extension to MAP** - Next by thread:
**Extension to MAP** - Index(es):