[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: REDUCE-ARGUMENT-EXTRACTION (version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: REDUCE-ARGUMENT-EXTRACTION (version 1)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 87 16:50:09 EST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 08 Dec 87 12:47:00 -0500. <871208124709.5.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 12:47 EST
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Several members of the committee feel that the increased functionality
outweighs the damage to the definition of :KEY. No one has objected
to this change in the recent round of discussions.
There is no "definition" of :KEY. At best, it's an unwritten rule. It's arguably
just a coincidence. Anyway, the general sentiment of this paragraph is right,
but it should be worded more carefully so that it doesn't set a precedent for
"unwritten rules" having to be too strongly justified.
To quote from CLtL page 246: "If an operation tests elements of a
sequence in any manner, the keyword argument :KEY, if not NIL, should
be function of one argument that will extract from an element the part
to be tested in place of the whole element."
This seems like a definition of :KEY to me, though I will cheerfully
agree that it doesn't specify that this is the only legal meaning of
Change the definition of REDUCE to take a :KEY keyword.
This needs to be more elaborated. You need to say what the :KEY keyword will do.
The proposal part of these write-ups is intended to stand on its own.
The text on page 246 is also the only place that :KEY is documented in
CLtL. However, I agree that a full description should be here both
because this is a slightly different use of :KEY and because our
standard document is likely to be more verbose than CLtL.