[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp%su-ai@usc-ecl
- Subject: REDUCE Change
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-ML>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 1983 17:29:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp-implementors%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-ML
What is the reason for this new wart in the definition of REDUCE, i.e.,
REDUCE of a one-element subsequence does not invoke the function?
It is not at all consistent with the rest of the definition of the
function. The specific (reduce '(foo) #'+) example in the manual
seems to me counterintuitive. I guess my big complaint is that this
"feature" does not fall out of the code nicely at all, and the amount
of code spent worrying about it, given indefinite list ends, :from-end,
etc., is almost equal to that of the rest of the function.