[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SELECTQ using = or EQ
- To: GSB at MIT-ML
- Subject: SELECTQ using = or EQ
- From: Carl W. Hoffman <CWH at MIT-MC>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 81 21:31:00 GMT
- Cc: JONL at MIT-MC, ALAN at MIT-MC, BUG-LISP at MIT-MC, Steele at CMU-20C
- Original-date: 17 July 1981 17:31-EDT
Date: 17 July 1981 16:02-EDT
From: Glenn S. Burke <GSB at MIT-ML>
The semantics of SELECTQ are leaning towards allowing "mixed types",
and those of CASEQ requiring everything to be of the same type.
"knowning" that everything is of the same type can help the compilation
of such a construct where that matters (pdp10 maclisp, for instance).
Elsewhere such a constraint doesn't hurt; you just use EQ all the time
anyway. Guy, are you there? Words of wisdom?
Sure, I understand the need for mixed types. I use a construct called
CASEQ-EQUAL when I need EQUAL comparison for a CASEQ.
What I object to is changing the definition of a construct as a result of a
"bug fix". It is a completely different thing to propose a change to the
semantics of SELECTQ or CASEQ, discuss it, and then implement the change.
It's too bad, actually, that we're using the name CASEQ to mean CASE-QUOTE
rather than CASE-EQ. Most people assume it stands for the latter.