[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: JONL at MIT-MC
- From: Alan Bawden <ALAN at MIT-MC>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 80 02:33:00 GMT
- Cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 12 February 1980 21:33-EST
Date: 12 FEB 1980 1243-EST
From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
(SUBST () () (HUNK 1 2 3 4)) MAKES A ** LIST **
also (append (hunk 1 2 3 nil) '(b c)) makes (1 b c).
Now perhaps you could argue that append is a list-hacking
function and that this is therefore reasonable. But other behaviors
could also be justified:
1) subst hacks non-atomic structure and should make hunks, while append
hacks lists and thus should barf since it is about to treat a hunk as
2) subst and append are both cons-hacking functions and they should both do
the same thing (both barf or both do what they do now).
3) subst and append are both non-atom hacking functions and should
make conses or hunks as appropriate.
I have always thought it was a pain that hunks are not atoms. It
seems that whenever one writes code that deals with lists that include
structures made of hunks (like those produced by a defstruct), one really
wants ATOM to return nil for hunks. Oh well, too late to change it now!