* screwy alist syntax
@ 2004-04-15 23:11 Brian S McQueen
2004-04-16 1:10 ` Paul Jarc
2004-04-16 21:04 ` Stephen Compall
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Brian S McQueen @ 2004-04-15 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
I just noticed something that looks screwy. Is there a good reason for
the following?
The assq func take a key and an alist:
assq key alist
assv key alist
assoc key alist
scm_assq (key, alist)
scm_assv (key, alist)
scm_assoc (key, alist)
BUT the assq-ref func take an alist and a key, which is the opposite
order:
assq-ref alist key
assv-ref alist key
assoc-ref alist key
scm_assq_ref (alist, key)
scm_assv_ref (alist, key)
scm_assoc_ref (alist, key)
I think these should two classes of functions should have their args in
the same order.
Brian McQueen
NAS Division
NASA/Ames
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: screwy alist syntax
2004-04-15 23:11 screwy alist syntax Brian S McQueen
@ 2004-04-16 1:10 ` Paul Jarc
2004-04-16 21:04 ` Stephen Compall
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jarc @ 2004-04-16 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: guile-user
Brian S McQueen <bqueen@nas.nasa.gov> wrote:
> I just noticed something that looks screwy. Is there a good reason for
> the following?
Whether there was a good reason when these procedures were invented, I
can't say. (ass*-ref and other *-ref procedures follow the same
pattern among themselves, at least.) But backward compatibility is a
good reason now for them to stay the way they are.
paul
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: screwy alist syntax
2004-04-15 23:11 screwy alist syntax Brian S McQueen
2004-04-16 1:10 ` Paul Jarc
@ 2004-04-16 21:04 ` Stephen Compall
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Compall @ 2004-04-16 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: guile-user
Brian S McQueen <bqueen@nas.nasa.gov> writes:
> I just noticed something that looks screwy. Is there a good reason for
> the following?
>
> The assq func take a key and an alist:
>
> assq key alist
> ...
> BUT the assq-ref func take an alist and a key, which is the opposite
> order:
>
> assq-ref alist key
> ...
Just making up stuff here, but I think that `assq' et al are historic
Lisp functions, and so were left as they were. However, `assq-ref' et
al are new, so can have the `right' order. They aren't in Emacs,
anyway.
--
Stephen Compall or s11 or sirian
Most people's favorite way to end a game is by winning.
Mena monarchist AFSPC analyzer arrangements quarter Ft. Bragg
MILSATCOM BRLO Consul Reno kilo class Europol JFK Roswell
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-16 21:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-15 23:11 screwy alist syntax Brian S McQueen
2004-04-16 1:10 ` Paul Jarc
2004-04-16 21:04 ` Stephen Compall
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).