subseq oddity

[missing@inch.com (Ken Tilton)]

How come (subseq '(a b c) -1 0) and (subseq '(a b c) 0 1) both return (a)?

In general, the optional 'end' arg is treated as exclusive by #'subseq. If
applied consistently, the (... -1 0) version would return nil (and I could
have used #'subseq!!). But nooooooo.....  <g>.

Now don't go scrambling for your Steeles. He treated subseq as a 25-word
contest. <g>

Just curious if there is some higher-order consistency that eludes what is
left of my over-worked mind.

Cheers,

Boy Tilton