[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: lisp-forum at MIT-MC
- Subject: C*R
- From: Guy.Steele at CMU-10A
- Date: Sat ,5 Dec 81 01:47:00 EDT
(1) It really should be C(AuD)*D hack, not C(AuD)+R. As RMS first
pointed out, CR should be the identity function.
(2) As for computer-generated functions, it would seem to be much more
in the spirit of LISP to generate (CAR (CDR (CDR X))) rather than
(CADDR X) by a program. If you must generate a function reference
rather than a form, there is always (LAMBDA (X) (CAR (CDR (CDR X)))).
Why do string hacking when lists suffice?
My experience, again, is that the C*R hack gets re-invented frequently,
usually by starry-eyed novices. This is not an ad hominem attack, but
an observation based on my experience. While elegant, it is useless,
or at least should not be used. I once was a starry-eyed novice myself,
and was quite pleased at inventing this cleverness; but the effort was
I don't really care whether Franz retains the feature or not, but if you're
going to go whole hog, go all the way and implement CR too. (Then explain
to everyone why CR doesn't do what TERPRI does! But that's another story.)