Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: >> Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: Hrvoje> Not to mention that things won't work with things like push, Hrvoje> pushnew, mapcar*, and oodles of nice things that works with Hrvoje> normal lists. >> >> >> These kinds of things you don't really *want* to work with weak >> >> lists: They're fundamentally different from ordinary lists. I'd >> >> even want to remove WEAK-LIST-MAP. The ... was not meant to reflect >> >> that I'd want more accessors. Hrvoje> But others would, in such a setting. >> But *who*, Hrvoje? Hrvoje> Anyone who sees a weak-list-assq will want a weak-list-assoc. But "anyone" is an empty set currently. Again, who cares? Hrvoje> I think there is merit in exposing a form of weak-list-list, so that Hrvoje> *all* list operations Just Work. I have no principal objection to a weak-list->list operation. However, it may not be fast. I've thought of some way to cache the result of this, but haven't come up with one which would not also entail special-purpose code in the GC, which brings us back to square one. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla