Cleanup Issue ASSOC-RASSOC-IF-KEY

Status
passed, 1988 (not sure which meeting)
Category
ENHANCEMENT
References
ASSOC-IF (p280), ASSOC-IF-NOT (p280), RASSOC-IF (p281), RASSOC-IF-NOT (p281)

Problem Description

The descriptions of ASSOC-IF, ASSOC-IF-NOT, RASSOC-IF, and RASSOC-IF-NOT do not mention a :KEY option, although ASSOC and RASSOC have one.

This is often reported as an inconsistency in Common Lisp.

Proposal (YES)

Allow a :KEY keyword for ASSOC-IF, ASSOC-IF-NOT, RASSOC-IF, and RASSOC-IF-NOT. If not supplied, it should default to #'IDENTITY as do the :KEY keywords for other -IF and -IF-NOT functions. The function, as with the :KEY argument for ASSOC and RASSOC, is applied to the CAR of the pair in the association list for ASSOC-IF and ASSOC-IF-NOT and the CDR of the pair for RASSOC-IF and RASSOC-IF-NOT.

Documentation impact:

A better description of the intent might be to say that the car /contains/ the key of the association, and by default the car /is/ the key of the association.

Examples

(assoc-if #'zerop pathnames :key #'pathname-version)

could be used to search a list indexed by pathnames finding one with zero version.

Rationale

This is an inconsistency in the language that is simple to fix.

Current Practice

Symbolics implements :KEY for the -IF and -IF-NOT assoc functions. Others follow the book and allow :KEY only for ASSOC.

Cost to Common Lisp implementors:

A small amount of additional code is necessary to support this in implementations not already offering it as an extension.

Cost to Common Lisp users:

The change is essentially upward compatible with user code.

Benefits

This would make the set of -IF and -IF-NOT functions be more regular in their calling conventions.

Aesthetics

All the other -IF and -IF-NOT variations of list operations omit the :TEST and :TEST-NOT keywords, but allow :KEY. For example, consider the family of MEMBER, MEMBER-IF, and MEMBER-IF-NOT. Although this introduces additional mechanism, it does so in a way that probably makes it easier to think about which functions do what, so it would likely be seen as a simplification.

Discussion

The omission of :KEY in this situation in CLtL was probably an oversight.

The cleanup committee supports this proposal.

Edit History