Re: Why aren't there functions such as filter, take-while, etc. "by default"?

[Deniz Dogan]

2010/4/26 Drew Adams <address@hidden>:
>> `sort' which given a list and a predicate sorts the list
>> destructively (rendering the original list useless) and then returns a
>> sorted copy of the original list.
>
> `sort' does not return a copy. It returns the sorted list, that is, the 
> modified
> list.
>
> ,----
> | sort is a built-in function in `C source code'.
> |
> | (sort LIST PREDICATE)
> |
> | Sort LIST, stably, comparing elements using PREDICATE.
> | Returns the sorted list.  LIST is modified by side effects.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^
> | PREDICATE is called with two elements of LIST, and should return non-nil
> | if the first element should sort before the second.
> |
> | [back]
> `----
>
>> (let* ((my-list (list 3 2 1))
>>        (sorted (sort my-list '<)))
>>   my-list) ;; returns (3)
>
> The sorted list is (1 2 3). If your sexp returned `sorted' instead of 
> `my-list'
> then that is what you would get.
>
> Your sexp returns (3) because `my-list' points to the cons cell whose car is 
> 3,
> and after sorting that same cons cell is the last one in the sorted list. If
> `sort' returned a complete copy, then its result (`sorted') would not share 
> any
> list structure with the original list. Try this, and you will see that 
> `sorted'
> is (1 2 5). The last cons cell in `sorted' is the cons cell pointed to by
> `my-list'.
>
> (let* ((my-list (list 3 2 1))
>       (sorted (sort my-list '<)))
>  (setcar my-list 5)
>  (message "sorted: %S" sorted) (sit-for 3) ; (1 2 5)
>  my-list) ; returns (5)
>
>

Thank you for the explanation. However, I can't help but feel that
this is just proving my point... :-)

-- 
Deniz Dogan