Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.78.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: William Clifford <w...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.emacs,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Lisp refactoring puzzle
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:53:49 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <86oc0xn0ma.fsf@gsosw-lego-spare1.domain.actdsltmp>
References: <19f8eb5b-cc90-472a-8399-4a5787b6fecf@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
	<c1749ae0-46ee-4ae6-a4e9-60eaebbc2a35@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
	<2c59f63a-b46f-4ea9-bc12-da4841687117@l28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
	<5cb297e4-6a39-461c-98c5-639e72e166af@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<87y603nwys.fsf@pangea.home.gustad.com>
	<983mh1Fs7cU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="hbmMLmhO3cMJa2rMO0OCrQ";
	logging-data="11064"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VnvuiM0uCcq6srh21kkke"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PBzLRliKDYNWOnmU8r98rhn4W14=
	sha1:ThZ5OFCJt1u0UasdnXCHvSKAvUw=

Neil Cerutti <ne...@norwich.edu> writes:

> On 2011-07-12, Petter Gustad <newsmailco...@gustad.com> wrote:
>> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
>>> don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
>>> intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
>>
>> In Common Lisp you have:
>>
>> CL-USER> (union '(a b c) '(b c d))
>> (A B C D)
>> CL-USER> (intersection '(a b c) '(b c d))
>> (C B)
>
> What's the rationale for providing them? Are the definitions
> obvious for collections that a not sets?

This seems like a good general question to me, although, I feel like the
answer to this question specifically is "yes, obvious enough." A general
purpose programming language ought to be general enough to allow
expansion, but have enough "obvious" features, that one doesn't have to
reinvent the wheel.

I recently read somewhere that human languages "differ less in what they
allow, and more in what they require" (paraphrase). I have little-to-no
computer science expertise, but I sense that in computer languages with
Turing equivalency this is exactly true.

-- 
William Clifford