[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


At Larry's request, I went over this to try to reconcile Moon's comments
with my previous draft. I ended up updating the proposal to add ``more
concrete vagueness.'' I'm certainly willing to believe that this part still
needs work.

Moon had asked specifically about whether we wanted to make DOLIST more like
MAPHASH by allowing deletion of the element you're at, but I decided not
to follow up on that suggestion because in the case of MAPHASH you have the KEY
which acts as a unique pointer into the structure, while in the case of DOLIST
you can have duplicated elements, and so you don't really have a pointer into
the structure. A better case might have been MAPL, but I declined to address that
because it was starting to seem more like an obscure point (even though I agree
with Moon that it makes things more general, the fact that it's only meaningful
in a few cases makes it seem like a special case ...)

References:     MAPCAR, MAPLIST, ... (p128);
	        DOLIST (p126); MAPHASH (p285); 
	        All functions using :TEST	      
Category:       CLARIFICATION
Edit history:   07-Mar-88, Version 1 by Pitman
	        09-Jun-88, Version 2 by Pitman
		   (merge Moon's comments and update current practice)
Status:	        For Internal Discussion

Problem Description:

 The interaction of mapping functions and DOLIST with destructive
 operations on the list being operated on is unclear. For example,
 if you destructively modify some tail of a list being mapped down,
 does that affect the mapping process?


 Clarify that it in general is an error (the effect is not defined
 but in general no error will be signalled) for code executed during a
 "structure traversing" operation to destructively modify the
 structure in a way that might affect the ongoing traversal operation.

 For list traversal operations, this means that the cdr chain of the
 list may not be destructively modified.

 For array traversal operations, the array may not be adjusted and
 its fill-pointer, if any, may not be changed.

 For hash tables, new elements may not be added or deleted EXCEPT
 that the element corresponding to the current hash key may be
 changed or removed.

 For packages, new symbols may not be interned in or uninterned from
 the package being traversed or any package that it uses EXCEPT that
 the current symbol may be uninterned from the package being traversed

 Note: This proposal is intended to clarify restrictions on user code
  for use with structure manipulators which are not inherently
  destructive. Other operators, such as DELETE-DUPLICATES or NREVERSE,
  may have much more complicated restrictions and are intentionally not
  treated by this proposal. See the issue REMF-DESTRUCTION-UNSPECIFIED
  for more discussion of such issues.

Test Case:

 (LET* ((L (LIST 'A 'B 'C)) (LL L) (I 0))
     (INCF I)
     (IF (EQ FOO 'B)
	 (POP LL)))
   (LIST I L)) might return (2 (A B)) or (3 (A B)), for example.


 This clarifies the status quo.

 Also, the likelihood that the user will want to destructively alter a
 structure while it is being traversed is low. The likelihood that such
 code would be readable and maintainable is also low. The likelihood 
 that a compiler could do some interesting optimization if this point
 were not pinned down is high enough to be the overriding consideration
 in this case.

Current Practice:

 The implementation of DOLIST in Symbolics Genera, KCL, and PopLog Common Lisp
 returns (3 (A B)) for the test case.

Cost to Implementors:

  None. This simply makes the status quo explicit.

Cost to Users:

  Technically none. People who were mistakenly assuming that CLtL guaranteed
  things which it does not might be inclined to rewrite their code in a more
  portable way.

Cost of Non-Adoption:

  Users would be less informed.


  users would be more informed.


  Some might say it would be clearer to define this one way or the other, but
  advocates of both camps exist and their arguments are fairly symmetric.
  In any case, since this is a proposal to preserve the status quo, it has no
  major impact on aesthetics.


  This idea for this proposal was suggested by the Japanese community.

  Pitman drafted the formal proposal and supports the EXPLICITLY-VAGUE proposal.

  Moon generally supported version 1 of this proposal, but had some specific
  criticisms about weakness of the wording which this version is an attempt to fix.