[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions]
- To: Randy%acorn@live-oak.lcs.mit.edu
- Subject: [Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions]
- From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 13:45 EST
- Cc: David C. Plummer <DCP@quabbin.scrc.symbolics.com>, Randy@sail.stanford.edu, common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8802291736.AA16958@Think.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 1988 11:27 EST
From: Randy%acorn@LIVE-OAK.LCS.MIT.EDU
It seems that anyone who does
(FIND number list-of-number :test #'<)
is depending on the order of the arguments to the test. I don't
know for sure if anyone depends on this, but it doesn't seem like
a particularly contorted example. There are a fair number of
non-commutative predicates.
This example reminds me of what I think is the reason for the particular
order chosen. I think the order of arguments to the test function is
always supposed to be the same as the order of arguments to the sequence
function, for ease of remembering.
barmar