[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions
- To: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 16:58:40 -0500
- Cc: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 29 Feb 88 13:50:00 -0500. <19880229185047.6.DCP@SWAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
| Here's a quick test/poll. Without using the -IF or -IF-NOT functions,
| - Remove all elements of a sequence which are less than 3.
| - Find the first element of a sequence which is more than 3.
| My "intuition" for coding this gives the wrong answers.
| I know this doesn't show anything about language design.
Counterquestion: Why is it so important to do this `[w]ithout using
the -IF or -IF-NOT functions'? My first reaction is
(remove-if #'(lambda (elt) (< elt 3)) seq)
PS. "`Straightedge and Compass' is no more powerful than `Compass
alone'" [Mascheroni? Steiner? Both? Sigh, I don't remember anymore].
Interesting, but both alternatives are much less useful than a
decent plotter. :-)