[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GET never advertised to "work on hunks"
- To: KMP at MIT-MC
- Subject: GET never advertised to "work on hunks"
- From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 81 16:37:00 GMT
- Cc: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 17 FEB 1981 1137-EST
Date: 16 February 1981 01:47-EST
From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
. . .
GET has never been advertised to do anything except return () when
applied to something other than a LIST or a SYMBOL....
This is *not* true. GET has been advertised to work on symbols and
disembodied property lists, which are lists of a certain form.
Here is the note from LISP NEWS which originally documents hunks.
Do you see any "advertisement" mentioning GET here?
TUESDAY JUNE 15,1976 FM+3D.2H.27M.33S. LISP 1160 - GLS -
[5E] MOST OTHER FUNCTIONS WHICH OPERATE ON LIST STRUCTURE
WILL TREAT HUNKS AS LIST CELLS, USING ONLY THE FIRST
But note how these three functions had to be specifically mentioned later:
MONDAY MAY 16,1977 LQ+6D.8H.0M.26S. LISP 1272 - GLS -
 THE VALUE OF HUNKP CONTROLS PRINT, PURCOPY, AND EQUAL
Since HUNKs are advertised and have been for a long time to behave
like lists, you are changing a documented behavior.
Oh really?, didn't you notice the changeover in default behaviour
mentioned in this note:
Thursday June 07,1979 FQ+5D.11H.58M.56S. - Jonl -
1) Value of "MAKHUNK" permits use of a new HUNK2 space.
I think this is very sad, for while I will agree that it is bad that
for HUNKs to have behaved originally as non-atoms, there is a wealth
of code that depends on this now and I don't want to see it broken.
Only RWK mentioned the bare **possibility** that the old, list-like
behaviour would be needed for some MRG code. NO ONE ELSE even mentioned
any code that depends on this.