Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!quiche!utility
From: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Correct LisP (was Re: in defense of C)
Message-ID: <2487@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 14 Mar 90 23:29:44 GMT
References: <1942@skye.ed.ac.uk> <14236@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <12572711825024@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE> <1990Mar12.104518.1412@hellgate.utah.edu> <2452@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> <2035@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 11

In article <2035@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>One certainly shouldn't use CAR and CDR for some abstractions, but
>why not use them on lists?  When would you actually allow me to use
>CAR and CDR?
	Its a judgement call.  I think the CxxxR usage is reasonable
(if you like, consider it an overloaded operator) and since there is
not a soul in the lisp world who doesn't know what these do, it is
pretty safe.  Indeed, does common lisp have something ('join') that is
like cons but prepends an object to the head of only a LISP?  If not,
one would have use such also to isolate lists.
		Ron