Re: Why is `pop' not named `npop'?

[Yuri Khan]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 17:53, Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> wrote:

> >> the `pop' macro is destructive. Why isn't it called `npop'
> >> then? [...]

> > but there is also no need for a non-destructive pop since we
> > already have car.
>
> But shouldn't `pop' be called "ncar" then?

The ‘n’ in ‘nreverse’ and other destructive functions is said to mean
‘non-consing’, that is, they won’t allocate new cons cells but rather
modify what is already there to achieve the desired structure. The
focus is not on destructiveness, it is on the lack of pressure on the
allocator.

‘car’ is already as non-consing as it gets.