[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: REDUCE args
- To: DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, Skef@THINK.COM, NGALL@G.BBN.COM, ALR%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
- Subject: Re: REDUCE args
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 17:51 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, gls@AQUINAS
- In-reply-to: <860725113911.8.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 11:39 EDT
From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 09:55 EDT
From: Skef Wholey <Skef@Think.COM>
In the meantime, you can of course do something like:
(reduce #'fun (map 'vector #'key sequence))
Somebody brought up this method the last time. I had at least two
reactions: (1) It doesn't really express the intent of the programmer,
and (2) I don't care what kind of machine you are on, you should care
about efficiency and consing.
I buy your argument (2), but (1) seems to be a bit spurious.
Why isn't the intent "take all those keys and reduce them"?
If that is the intent, why can't that be expressed as
"(take all those keys) and (reduce them)"? Is it that
you had rather in mind "reduce all them thar keys"
and don't consider the other an equivalent formulation?