[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SEQUENCE-FUNCTIONS-EXCLUDE-ARRAYS (Version 2)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: SEQUENCE-FUNCTIONS-EXCLUDE-ARRAYS (Version 2)
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 2 May 1987 15:21 EDT
- In-reply-to: Msg of 28 Apr 1987 14:13-EDT from Kent M Pitman <KMP at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
I have no strong opinion on this proposal. It doesn't look to me like
it would add much confusion, it wouldn't be too hard to implement, and
apparently some people would find it useful. So I guess I'm mildly in
favor of either the GENERALIZE or the MODIFIED version.
I would not like to see this leave committee in the current format.
Maybe KMP, Touretzky, Rees, and anyone else who cares can work out a
single proposal that they all like. The paths not taken can be
mentioned in the discussion section.
I would like to encourage KMP to go ahead with a separate proposal for
ROW-MAJOR-SUBSCRIPTS (or whatever we end up calling it). Given that, I
think a version of POSITION that returns a single number for arrays is
probably the way to go, and users can then turn this into a subscript
list if they like. I have a mild aversion to getting a list from some
function that has heretofore always returned a number or NIL.
In choosing issues to introduce in the future, we probably should lean
toward doing clarifications first and saving extension for later.