trivial q: where'd the n prefix for destr. functions come from

From: Richard
Subject: trivial q: where'd the n prefix for destr. functions come from
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:40:06 +0000
Message-ID: <3B7C4BB7.254A9A4B@spam.spam>

Where did the 'n' prefix for destructive functions come from? Why did
they use an 'n'? Just curious.


thanks in advance

Re: trivial q: where'd the n prefix for destr. functions come from Bob Riemenschneider
Re: trivial q: where'd the n prefix for destr. functions come from Barry Margolin

From: Bob Riemenschneider
Subject: Re: trivial q: where'd the n prefix for destr. functions come from
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:25:50 +0000
Message-ID: <tpg0arsfap.fsf@coyote.csl.sri.com>

Richard <······@spam.spam> writes:

> Where did the 'n' prefix for destructive functions come from? Why did
> they use an 'n'? Just curious.

In the Lisp 1.5 manual (which is still sitting out after the SASSQ
question), McCarthy describes NCONC -- the N- half of the first
FOO/NFOO pair -- as concatenating its arguments without copying the
first.  ("Destructive" doesn't appear.)  So my guess is that the 'n'
is from "noncopying".  Maybe McCarthy says something about this in
his HOPL paper?

							-- rar

From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: trivial q: where'd the n prefix for destr. functions come from
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:29:17 +0000
Message-ID: <xzZe7.23$ku5.193@burlma1-snr2>

In article <·················@spam.spam>, Richard  <······@spam.spam> wrote:
>Where did the 'n' prefix for destructive functions come from? Why did
>they use an 'n'? Just curious.

I just found a thread from last year discussing this on Google:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=33a53ac9ea6026d1,23&seekm=m3g0s8hgyj.fsf%40alum.mit.edu>

-- 
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.