[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: JONL at MIT-MC
- From: kmp at MIT-MC (Kent M. Pitman)
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 81 21:11:00 GMT
- Cc: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 17 FEB 1981 1611-EST
From the lisp 1.5 programmer's manual
(defun listp (x)
(or (null x) (and (not (atom x)) (listp (cdr x))))
The idea of making hunks not answer T to the atom test
is a new one and one that was allowed in only for USRHUNKs because
many implementors (myself included) use HUNK as an extended
Since property lists are allowed to be disembodied, then
hunks may implement that. Saying that certain functions were advertised
to work on hunks doesn't mean that others were not. In the
case of hunks, I don't think anyone will claim that hunks were
not known to be GETable.
Is there anyone else in the Bug-Lisp community that thinks
that this was not the interpretation up until JONL's recent 'fix'?
HUNKs are an implementational tool for all sorts of things. They
need to be left as flexible as possible. There was a perfectly reasonable
way to get both functionalities. Why must you break that? There was
a perfectly reasonable rule about when HUNKs were thought of as atoms.
Why must you break that? I am very annoyed that you make decisions this
large without consulting the rest of the community.