Re: Lists composed of equal number and kind of elements

[Emanuel Berg]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com>
writes:

>>> So he doesn't need a fully general solution.
>> OK, good point.
>
> Not really.
>
> I mean, ok, always implementing the most specific
> solution to customers' request is a good way to
> ensure job security.
>
> But if your purpose is to change the world really,
> and not just giving lip service to Silicon Valley
> mantras, then you will implement the most general
> solution so you don't have to do anything else when
> the customer or another comes with a variant of
> their problem, and so eventually we can leave
> programs and robots work for us.

The purpose is always to change the world (or some
part of it, which is the same). But that robot thing
I don't want ever to happen because then what will *I*
do all days (and nights)? That would be
super-depressing!

But in general I agree the most general solution is
the best, and if specific interfaces are needed, those
are super-easy to add (especially in Lisp).

In this case tho it isn't exactly clear what the
most general solution is. Is it set equality where
duplicates don't matter, or is it set equality plus
list-length equality? Pairing both with `and' seems
the right thing to do - then the only problem is what
to call the function...

While the OP mentioned (window-list) it is conceivable
he will find reason to reuse this in the future - it
is even likely if he is a good programmer. Then he can
either use the most general solution, or provide a new
interface, if needed, but only if *now* he chooses
a general solution. Otherwise he wouldn't have advanced
anything by doing this now, save for experience, but
that isn't specific to doing the specific thing!

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573