[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: gjc@mit-mc
- Subject: Re: c*r
- From: CSVAX.fateman at Berkeley
- Date: Sat ,5 Dec 81 01:10:00 EDT
- Cc: CSVAX.jkf@Berkeley, lisp-forum@mit-mc
George, you still haven't said why you think supporting c*r is bad.
A human who uses caadadadadadr habitually at top-level
is not applying various lessons about
data abstraction, structures, etc. but that doesn't mean he/she should
be prevented from using that function. And defining caadadadadadr
to mean something ELSE would be strictly bad news.
In particular, when such constructions are "computer-created", or used
to implement REPRESENTATIONS, c*r seems quite natural.
Your line about experience doesn't hold up. While I believe in
"ad hominem" arguments as much as the next guy, (see below),
what is your point?
Do you think KMP's definition of
mdo-unless is better than (defmacro mdo-unless (x) (caddddddr ,x)),
which is how it could be done in Franz?
I think you are just jealous that you didn't think of the c*r hack.
(should be really C(AuD)+R hack...)
- Prev by Date:
- Next by Date:
- Previous by thread:
- Next by thread: