[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: info-lispm-mit@MIT-OZ
- Subject: KMP's message
- From: RMS@MIT-OZ
- Date: Sun ,19 Jun 83 23:18:00 EDT
- Mail-from: RMS created at 19-Jun-83 23:18:24
Please don't believe KMP's clarification of my question!
His facts are correct, but the question he clarified is not the one I asked.
Common Lisp has a nice set of sequence functions, with EQL the
default for the test. That is no problem for us, except:
some of them have the same names as familiar old Lisp functions
which they are incompatible with.
KMP has raised the issue of how those sequence functions ought to
work, and (it seems to me) supported the Common Lisp proposals. I
like them pretty well too, but that is a DIFFERENT ISSUE, which while
more interesting in itself has less impact on all our existing code.
It's also something that would require a much harder fight to change
(it's too late). So discuss that question if you want to, but don't
be distracted by it from the one that is just barely NOT too late:
Should certain function Common Lisp sequence functions,
which may be useful, avoid having names that are the same as
existing Lisp functions which they are not compatible with,
just so that our old code does not break.