[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: BIT-ARRAY-FUNCTIONS (Version 5)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: BIT-ARRAY-FUNCTIONS (Version 5)
- From: Kim Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 89 18:17 EDT
- Comments: Received from Kim Barrett by KMP on MSDOS floppy disk via US Mail
- Sender: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Of the two proposals, I prefer ADD. I agree that allowing differing
dimensions for the arguments to these functions is important. Because
of the current requirement that they have equal dimensions I end up
almost never using them.
I think BIT-EQUAL might be a more consistent name, because of
STRING-EQUAL, but that's a minor quibble. What should BIT-EQUALP do
with fill-pointers? EQUAL and EQUALP are limited by the fill-pointer,
so probably this should be too.
Since I believe we added the COMPLEMENT function at the Hawaii meeting
(during the big TEST-NOT-IF-NOT debate), optimize (COMPLEMENT #'ZEROP) too.