Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I've used incf occasionally, but don't find it terribly important.
> I find it adds readability, since you don't have to see that
> "(setq foo (1+ foo))" has the same `foo' both places.

No disagreement (I also dislike such duplication, which is why I insist
on using (set (make-local-variable 'var) val)), I just don't find it's
often enough important (in my experience it's not used that often, and
most times it's used, it's used on locally-bound variables with short
names).
This said, if/when we have `setf', then there's no reason not to have
`incf'.

>>> `plusp'?
>> Never used it.  (> n 0) is no shorter than (plusp n) and is just as
>> clear, so I really don't see the benefit.
> Again, I think it's usually more readable, because (as with `zerop')
> it's immediately obvious what the condition is.  Especially with longer
> parameters:

> (plusp (1+ (foo-thing-that-computes-something)))
> vs
> (> (1+ (foo-thing-that-computes-something)) 0)

that's because you write it wrong:

  (< 0 (1+ (foo-thing-that-computes-something)))
aka
  (< -1 (foo-thing-that-computes-something))

aka (assuming it's integer)

  (<= 0 (foo-thing-that-computes-something))

> I think the `-if' and `-if-not' help with reading comprehension, because
> you're signalling in the function name what you mean to do, and you
> don't have to read the predicate as thoroughly.  And the predicate can
> be written clearer, too.  If you don't have both forms, the predicate
> often tends to look like `(lambda (foo) (not ...))', which makes my
> brain hurt.

That's just a question of habit, really.

[ You might prefer "delete-if (¬ ∘ pred) list", of course.  ]


        Stefan