[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:45:01 +0900 |
David Kastrup writes:
> If `copy-sequence' allows for dotted lists, so should `length'. I am
> not sure I like the implications since every list implicitly is also a
> dotted list.
>
> To wit:
> (copy-sequence '(2 3 . (4 5))) creates an element-wise copy of (4 5)
> while (copy-sequence '(2 3 . [4 5])) would not create an element-wise
> copy of [4 5].
>
> (length '(2 3 . (4 5))) is 4, while (length '(2 3 . [4 5])) should
> presumably be 3.
I don't see the problem. `(2 3 . (4 5))' is just notation; the
structure is `(2 . (3 . (4 . (5 . nil))))'. The two cases above
surely have lengths 4 and 3 respectively, while the interesting case
is `(2 3 4 . 5)' which I suppose should have length 4, but I'm not
massively invested in it.
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, (continued)
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/10/22
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/23
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, Michael Kifer, 2007/10/23
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/23
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, Johan Bockgård, 2007/10/24
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, David Kastrup, 2007/10/24
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, David Kastrup, 2007/10/25
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/10/26
- Re: copy-sequence no longer copies rings, David Kastrup, 2007/10/26