Prev: Macro with-timeout
Next: Confirmed: never, Ever, EVER use nreverse unless you (I meanI) damn well know what is going on
From: vippstar on 9 Dec 2009 15:10
On Dec 9, 9:47 pm, t...(a)sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> vippstar <vipps...(a)gmail.com> writes:
<snip>
> > I could answer that
> > no conforming NREVERSE implementation could have l2 a value different
> > than (3 2 1) (2 1) (1). Isn't that also true? Also, isn't it true that
> > l2 could never be (1 2 3)? But that'd be the case with the NREVERSE
> > suggestion in the student example, which is why (1 2 3) for l2 isn't
> > conforming.
>
> (1 2 3) for L2 is perfectly conforming.  NREVERSE is not REQUIRED to
> modify andy cons cells at all.

I understand now, thanks.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Macro with-timeout
Next: Confirmed: never, Ever, EVER use nreverse unless you (I meanI) damn well know what is going on