[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CL-cleanup@Sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: Issue: TAILP-NIL
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 23:36 EDT
- In-reply-to: <870529-223659-1341@Xerox>
I vote against releasing this issue until its writeup is in proper format.
When you write the current practice section, mention that Symbolics
follows the second of the two contradictory sentences in the tailp
writeup, hence (tailp nil <anything>) => t. This may mean that current
practice is not uniform.
For history, you can mention that the unambiguous definition in the
MIT Lisp Machine Manual (I consulted the fourth edition) would require
(tailp nil <anything>) => nil.
I personally don't care which disambiguation is adopted. If the writeup
includes a proposal to eliminate the function, I will vote for that, since
I've never understood what use tailp is.