[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
- To: dlw at SCRC-TENEX, bug-lispm at SCRC-TENEX
- From: David L. Andre <DLA at SCRC-TENEX>
- Date: Tue ,19 Jan 82 15:19:00 EDT
- Cc: DLA at SCRC-TENEX
- In-reply-to: Your message of 19-Jan-82 1027-EST
Well, somebody went to a lot of trouble to guarantee that REMQ and
friends didn't cons up a new list if they didn't have to.
The only alternative to recursion, if we want to keep the same
(undocumented) behaviour, is to run two passes on the list. This is
probably preferable.
I can't help but draw an analogy to KMP's STRING-TRIM flame. We're
being pretty hypocritical if we don't treat the two cases the same
Also, if this is changed to copy always, the second value (CHANGEDP)
can presumably be flushed.
See DLA;AI:DLA;REMQ for a REMQ which conses, and only returns
one value.
-------