[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Weixelbaum Elia <vax135!lcuxle!elia@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, email@example.com
- Subject: assoc question
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 14:01 EST
- In-reply-to: <8711191541.AA27647@lcuxle.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 10:41:03 EST
From: vax135!lcuxle!elia@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Weixelbaum Elia)
I think it should not be allowed at all since assoc lists are defined
as pairs such that the keys are the cars of the respective pairs, not
some function of the respective cars. In any event, there should certainly
not be an inconsistency.
I think this is because an "Association list" is poorly defined. It
appears to be historically defined. A better definition of the CLtL'84
intent might be that the car /contains/ the key of the association, and
by default the car /is/ the key of the association.
I agree it does appear to be inconsistent (with FIND, COUNT and
POSITION) that ASSOC-IF doesn't take a :KEY argument.
- assoc question
- From: vax135!lcuxle!elia@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Weixelbaum Elia)