Cleanup Issue APPEND-DOTTED

Category
CHANGE/CLARIFICATION
References
APPEND (p268)

Problem Description

The description of APPEND on p268 is not adequately clear on the issue of what happens if an argument to APPEND is a dotted list. The only case explicitly mentioned is the last argument, viz:

"The last argument [to APPEND] actually need not be a list but may be any
LISP object, which becomes the tail end of the constructed list. For
example, (append '(a b c) 'd) => (a b c . d)."

While this specifies the behavior of APPEND when the last argument is not a list, the behavior when any of the other arguments are not lists is not specified.

Proposal (REPLACE)

Define that the cdr of the last cons in any but the last argument given to APPEND or NCONC is discarded (whether NIL or not) when preparing the list to be returned.

In the degenerate case where there is no last cons (i.e., the argument is NIL) in any but the last list argument, clarify that the entire argument is effectively ignored. Point out that in this situation, if the last argument is a non-list, the result of APPEND or NCONC can be a non-list.

Remove any text which suggests that (APPEND x '()) and (COPY-LIST x) are the same, since these two might legitimately differ in situations involving dotted lists. As such, deciding which to use is not just a stylistic issue.

Examples

(APPEND '(A B C . D) '())       => (A B C)	;Proposed
(NCONC (LIST* 'A 'B 'C 'D) '()) => (A B C)	;Proposed

Note that (COPY-LIST '(A B C . D)) would still return (A B C . D).

(APPEND '(A B . C) '() 3)       => (A B . 3)	;Proposed
(NCONC (LIST* 'A 'B 'C) '() 3)  => (A B . 3)	;Proposed

(APPEND '() 17)   => 17			;Proposed
(NCONC (LIST) 17) => 17			;Proposed

Rationale

This function is used a lot and its behavior should be well-defined across implementations. This proposal upholds the apparent status quo in a number of implementations.

Current Practice

Symbolics Lisp, Vaxlisp, and Lucid Lisp appear to implement the proposed
interpretation (at least in the interpreter). Franz's Allegro Common Lisp
conforms to the proposed behavior except in the case of (NCONC (LIST) 17)
=> 17, where it returns NIL instead of 17.

Kyoto Common Lisp signal an error when using APPEND or NCONC on a dotted list. Xerox Common Lisp signals an error on APPEND and implements the proposed interpretation on NCONC.

Cost to Implementors

Technically, the change should be relatively small for those implementations which don't already implement it. However, implementations which have microcoded APPEND or NCONC incompatibly may find the small change somewhat painful.

Some implementations may have optimized their APPEND or NCONC to expect only NIL when SAFETY is 0. In this case, depending on implementation details, requiring an ATOM check rather than a NULL check may slow things down.

Cost to Users

This change is upward compatible.

Benefits

Since non-lists are allowed as a last argument and since APPEND and NCONC can therefore produce dotted lists, some readers may have (incorrectly) assumed that APPEND and NCONC can reliably deal in general with dotted lists, something that doesn't appear to be guaranteed by a strict reading. The proposed extension would happen to legitimize such assumptions.

Aesthetics

Whether or not users will think this improves the aesthetics of the language will depend largely on how they view the relation between lists and dotted lists. Those who view dotted lists as a special kind of list may feel differently than those who view lists as a special kind of dotted list.

Discussion

The cleanup committee supports this proposal.

Edit History