[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions]
- To: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: [Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions]
- From: Randyemail@example.com
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 1988 15:27:00 -0000
- Cc: Randy, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 09:34 EST
> From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> Subject: Order of arguments to sequence :TEST functions
> To: email@example.com
> CLtL page 247 says
> ... (funcall testfn item (keyfn x)) ...
> I'm curious to know why this order was chosen instead of
> ... (funcall testfn (keyfn x) item) ...
> Yes, I know I can use find-if, and that's what I'm really doing. Was
> there a reason for the ordering choice? Does anybody depend on it, or
> know of somebody that does? Is there any chance of CLtL'89 reversing
> it (and documenting the reason in the text)?
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