[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: MOON%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN, Common-Lisp@su-ai
- Subject: Substitute-if
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1983 13:21:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: The message of 10 Jun 83 22:28-EDT from MOON at SCRC-TENEX
Date: Friday, 10 June 1983 22:28-EDT
From: MOON at SCRC-TENEX
Date: Friday, 10 June 1983, 16:10-EDT
From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>
Before we cast the language in stone, I would like some resolution
of why substitute-if/nsubstitute-if have argument orders incongruous
with the rest of the if/if-not's.
I don't actually see what's incongruous about it. In the Laser edition,
all of the -if/-if-not functions replace the "item" argument with the
"test" argument; in other words replace the object being searched for
with the function to search for it. substitute-if doesn't have the
test as its first argument, but then substitute doesn't have the item
as its first argument either.
OK, I see the grand scheme here. My observation of inconsistency was based
upon the fact that substitute/nsubstitute/if/if-not do not have their
predicate argument first. I will modify my macrology appropriately.