A thread has broken out on the lisp-nyc mailing list (well, two threads
have broken out, but only one of them is for grown-ups).
Is there any interesting history behind gaps in the set operations
available off the shelf for CL? Did one dialect or another have a more
complete set which did not make it into the spec? Has the need never
been that great, esp. given the substantial number of sequence
operations which are set ops or close to them in spirit?
Also, what about open source libraries along these lines. I see this
one, but I seem to recall there being at least one other.
http://user.it.uu.se/~svenolof/Collect/
thx, kenny
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> A thread has broken out on the lisp-nyc mailing list (well, two threads
> have broken out, but only one of them is for grown-ups).
>
> Is there any interesting history behind gaps in the set operations
> available off the shelf for CL? Did one dialect or another have a more
> complete set which did not make it into the spec? Has the need never
> been that great, esp. given the substantial number of sequence
> operations which are set ops or close to them in spirit?
No answers, but I've wondered this since I first started taking CL
seriously. I noticed the existing set operations, got excited, then
noticed that there were only a few of them. I suspect it hasn't been
a big problem because the existing set ops get your mind going in that
direction, and you can fairly easily write your own to add to the
existing set.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'