Issue: ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY (Version 3)

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

Version 2 had a mistake. The :KEY is applied to the CDR in RASSOC.

!
Issue:        ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY
References:   ASSOC-IF (p280), ASSOC-IF-NOT (p280), RASSOC-IF (p281),
              RASSOC-IF-NOT (p281)
Category:     ENHANCEMENT
Edit history: 22-Apr-87, Version 1 by Pitman
              20-Nov-87, Versions 2,3 by Masinter

Problem Description:

The descriptions of ASSOC-IF, ASSOC-IF-NOT, RASSOC-IF, and RASSOC-IF-NOT
do not mention a :KEY option, although ASSOC and RASSOC have one.

Proposal (ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY:YES):

Allow a :KEY keyword for ASSOC-IF, ASSOC-IF-NOT, RASSOC-IF, and RASSOC-IF-NOT.
If not supplied, it should default to #'IDENTITY as do the :KEY keywords
for other -IF and -IF-NOT functions. The function, as with the :KEY argument
for ASSOC and RASSOC, are applied to the CAR of the pair in the association
list for ASSOC-IF and ASSOC-IF-NOT and the CDR of the pair for RASSOC-IF and
RASSOC-IF-NOT.

Documentation impact:

A better description of the intent might be to say that the car /contains/
the key of the association, and by default the car /is/ the key of the
association.

Example:

(assoc-if #'zerop pathnames :key #'pathname-version)

could be used to search a list indexed by pathnames finding one
with zero version. 

Rationale:

This is an inconsistency in the language which is simple to fix.

Current Practice:

Symbolics implements :KEY for the -IF and -IF-NOT assoc functions.
Franz and Xerox follow the book. TI Explorer doe not allow :KEY at all.

Cost to Common Lisp implementors:

A small amount of additional code is necessary to support this in 
implementations not already offering it as an extension.

Cost to Common Lisp users:

The change is essentially upward compatible with user code.

Benefits:

This would make the set of -IF and -IF-NOT functions be more regular in
their calling conventions.

Aesthetics:

All the other -IF and -IF-NOT variations of list operations omit the
:TEST and :TEST-NOT keywords, but allow :KEY. For example, consider
the family of MEMBER, MEMBER-IF, and MEMBER-IF-NOT. 
Although this introduces additional mechanism, it does so in a way that
probably makes it easier to think about which functions do what, so it
would likely be seen as a simplification.

Discussion:

The omission of :KEY in this situation in CLtL was probably an
oversight.

The cleanup committee supports this change/clarification.