Drew Adams writes: > I'm just pointing out that a function we already have, and one > that is used more widely by users of Common Lisp, does the same > thing - unless I'm missing something. I agree (except that one has opposite result). > If people think that some users might not think to use > `set-exclusive-or' to test set equality then we could add a > `set-equal' function. Common Lisp didn't think so, and neither > do I, but I wouldn't oppose adding it. At least I didn't think about using exclusive-or. Searching for "equal" or "same elements" in the info page (info "(cl) Lists as Sets") didn't help. > If we do add it, I'd imagine that the implementation should be > the same (adding `not', as you say), for clarity and consistency > - unless other things are not equal for some reason (i.e., > unless there is a good reason not to use the existing > implementation). I updated the patch. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill