[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 1)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 88 21:34 EDT
Date: 2 Oct 88 14:32 PDT
Subject: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 1)
At least today, I think that adding these functions would be
a good idea if we also remove the -IF-NOT functions. It would
be a good idea given the current awkwardness of preventing
both a :TEST and :TEST-NOT.
Are there other things that might easily be removed?
How do you feel about removing :TEST-NOT and -IF-NOT?
I'm for it. Just so people have something concrete to haggle over,
here's a writeup and a separate place to discuss it.
References: Functions offering a :TEST-NOT keyword:
ADJOIN (p276), ASSOC (p280), COUNT (p257), DELETE (p254),
DELETE-DUPLICATES (p254), FIND (p257),
INTERSECTION (p277), MEMBER (p275), MISMATCH (p257),
NINTERSECTION (p277), NSET-DIFFERENCE (p278),
NSET-EXCLUSIVE-OR (p278), NSUBLIS (p275), NSUBST (p274),
NSUBSTITUTE (p256), NUNION (p276), POSITION (p257),
RASSOC (p281), REMOVE (p253), REMOVE-DUPLICATES (p254),
SEARCH (p258), SET-DIFFERENCE (p278),
SET-EXCLUSIVE-OR (p278), SUBLIS (p274), SUBSETP (p279),
SUBST (p273), SUBSTITUTE (p255), TREE-EQUAL (p264),
Functions with "-IF-NOT" in their name:
ASSOC-IF-NOT (p280), COUNT-IF-NOT (p257),
DELETE-IF-NOT (p254), FIND-IF-NOT (p257),
MEMBER-IF-NOT (p275), NSUBST-IF-NOT (p274),
NSUBSTITUTE-IF-NOT (p256), POSITION-IF-NOT (p257),
RASSOC-IF-NOT (p281), REMOVE-IF-NOT (p253),
SUBST-IF-NOT (p273), SUBSTITUTE-IF-NOT (p255);
Edit history: 02-Oct-88, Version 1 by Pitman
Status: For Internal Discussion
The -IF-NOT functions are functionally unnecessary.
The :TEST-NOT keywords are not only functionally unnecessary but
also problematic because it's not clear what to do when both :TEST
and :TEST-NOT are provided.
Many people think Common Lisp is more `bloated' than it needs
to be and these aspects of the language are commonly cited
Remove all -IF-NOT functions (named above) from Common Lisp.
Remove the :TEST-NOT keyword from the Common Lisp functions which
currently provide them (named above).
This makes the language a bit simpler.
The removal of :TEST-NOT also makes the language easier to explain.
Presumably no one has done this yet.
Cost to Implementors:
Some symbols would disappear from the LISP package but could
still be offered in proprietary packages if deemed important
Implementations could compatibly retain the :TEST-NOT keywords
for an interim period.
Cost to Users:
Some rewrites would be needed.
Those rewrites, which are already fairly simple, would be even
more simple if some form of the FUNCTION-COMPOSITION issue is
voted in -- in particular, the COMPLEMENT function which it
proposes would help enormously in this regard.
Cost of Non-Adoption:
Common Lisp would continue to be what some people feel is
"bigger than it needs to be".
The cost of non-adoption would be avoided.
Presumably this makes the language easier to teach.
It's possible to make FLUSH-TEST-NOT or FLUSH-IF-NOT proposals
if we can't get enough people to buy into the full proposal but
think we can get consensus on a subset.
This issue is related to FUNCTION-COMPOSITION, but is not
dependent on it.
Pitman supports this change.