[HARLEQUIN][Common Lisp HyperSpec (TM)] [Previous][Up][Next]


Issue ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY Writeup

Issue:        ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY

References: ASSOC-IF (p280), ASSOC-IF-NOT (p280), RASSOC-IF (p281),

RASSOC-IF-NOT (p281)

Category: ENHANCEMENT

Edit history: 22-Apr-87, Version 1 by Pitman

20-Nov-87, Versions 2,3 by Masinter

23-Nov-87, Version 4 by Masinter

Problem Description:

The descriptions of ASSOC-IF, ASSOC-IF-NOT, RASSOC-IF, and RASSOC-IF-NOT do not

mention a :KEY option, although ASSOC and RASSOC have one.

This is often reported as an inconsistency in Common Lisp.

Proposal (ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY:YES):

Allow a :KEY keyword for ASSOC-IF, ASSOC-IF-NOT, RASSOC-IF, and RASSOC-IF-NOT.

If not supplied, it should default to #'IDENTITY as do the :KEY keywords for

other -IF and -IF-NOT functions. The function, as with the :KEY argument for

ASSOC and RASSOC, is applied to the CAR of the pair in the association list for

ASSOC-IF and ASSOC-IF-NOT and the CDR of the pair for RASSOC-IF and

RASSOC-IF-NOT.

Documentation impact:

A better description of the intent might be to say that the car /contains/ the

key of the association, and by default the car /is/ the key of the association.

Example:

(assoc-if #'zerop pathnames :key #'pathname-version)

could be used to search a list indexed by pathnames finding one with zero

version.

Rationale:

This is an inconsistency in the language that is simple to fix.

Current Practice:

Symbolics implements :KEY for the -IF and -IF-NOT assoc functions. Others follow

the book and allow :KEY only for ASSOC.

Cost to Common Lisp implementors:

A small amount of additional code is necessary to support this in

implementations not already offering it as an extension.

Cost to Common Lisp users:

The change is essentially upward compatible with user code.

Benefits:

This would make the set of -IF and -IF-NOT functions be more regular in their

calling conventions.

Aesthetics:

All the other -IF and -IF-NOT variations of list operations omit the :TEST and

:TEST-NOT keywords, but allow :KEY. For example, consider the family of MEMBER,

MEMBER-IF, and MEMBER-IF-NOT. Although this introduces additional mechanism, it

does so in a way that probably makes it easier to think about which functions do

what, so it would likely be seen as a simplification.

Discussion:

The omission of :KEY in this situation in CLtL was probably an oversight.

The cleanup committee supports this proposal.


[Starting Points][Contents][Index][Symbols][Glossary][Issues]
Copyright 1996, The Harlequin Group Limited. All Rights Reserved.