#

## Issue RANGE-OF-COUNT-KEYWORD Writeup

    Issue:        RANGE-OF-COUNT-KEYWORD
    References:   :COUNT (p247), REMOVE[-xxx] (p253), DELETE[-xxx] (p254),
    	      [N]SUBSTITUTE[-xxx] (pp255-256)
    Category:     CLARIFICATION
    Edit history: 21-Aug-88, Version 1 by Dave Touretzky
    	      22-Aug-88, Version 2 by Pitman
    	      09-Oct-88, Version 3 by Pitman
    Status:	      For Internal Discussion

    Problem Description:

     CLtL is overly vague about legal values for the :COUNT keyword
     parameters to builtin functions such as the sequence functions. It
     says that the keyword ``limits the number of elements [affected]''.
     Implementations have varied in their interpretation of this phrase,
     however.

     CLtL p247 specifies that if the :COUNT parameter to functions such
     as REMOVE and DELETE ``is NIL or is not supplied, all matching items
     are affected.'' Because of the placement of this requirement
     outside of the description of the functions affected, some
     implementations have overlooked this requirement and had to be
     changed later.

     CLtL doesn't say explicitly that the value of :COUNT must be an
     integer, nor does it say what to do for negative values.

     The fact that reasonable implementations disagree on some of the
     details make this an obvious candidate for cleanup.

    Proposal (RANGE-OF-COUNT-KEYWORD:NIL-OR-INTEGER):

     Clarify that for the functions

       REMOVE	REMOVE-IF	REMOVE-IF-NOT
       DELETE	DELETE-IF	DELETE-IF-NOT
       SUBSTITUTE	SUBSTITUTE-IF	SUBSTITUTE-IF-NOT
       NSUBSTITUTE	NSUBSTITUTE-IF	NSUBSTITUTE-IF-NOT

     the following restrictions on the :COUNT keyword parameter exist:

       * The value of this parameter must be NIL or an integer.

       * Using a negative integer value is functionally equivalent to
         using a value of zero.

    Test Case:

      #1: (REMOVE 'A '(A B A B) :COUNT  0)   => (A B A B)
      #2: (REMOVE 'A '(A B A B) :COUNT -3)   => (A B A B)
      #3: (REMOVE 'A '(A B A B) :COUNT NIL)  => (B B)
      #4: (REMOVE 'A '(A B A B) :COUNT  1.0) is an error.
      #5: (REMOVE 'A '(A B A B) :COUNT 'FOO) is an error.

    Rationale:

     Disallowing non-integer numbers is probably the original intent and
     is consistent with other functions such as NTH (p265) which accept
     count-like arguments that are explicitly required to integers. This
     restriction would presumably permit better optimizations in low-safety
     mode on stock hardware.

     Allowing NIL to be equivalent to no value allows a simplified flow
     of control in some situations. For example, one can write
      (DEFUN MYDEL (ITEM &OPTIONAL COUNT)
        (DELETE ITEM *MYLIST* :COUNT COUNT))
     where otherwise it might be necessary to write something like
      (DEFUN MYDEL (ITEM &OPTIONAL (COUNT NIL COUNT-P))
        (IF COUNT-P
            (DELETE ITEM *MYLIST* :COUNT COUNT)
            (DELETE ITEM *MYLIST*)))

     Allowing negative numbers frees users from having to do an explicit
     check for negative numbers when the value of :COUNT is computed by
     some complicated expression. For example:
      (DEFUN LEAVE-AT-MOST (N ITEM SEQUENCE &KEY (FROM-END T))
        (REMOVE ITEM SEQUENCE
          :COUNT (PRINT (- (COUNT ITEM SEQUENCE) N))
          :FROM-END FROM-END))
      (LEAVE-AT-MOST 2 #\A "BANANAS")  ==>  "BANANS"
      (LEAVE-AT-MOST 2 #\S "BANANAS")  ==>  "BANANAS"

    Current Practice:

     [Note: Pitman didn't try these examples in KCL or CMU Common Lisp. He's
      working from data in Touretzky's last draft of this proposal, so someone
      from those camps might want to test the assertions made here.]

     #1: All correct implementations presumably return (A B A B).
         This value is consisent with this proposal.

     #2: Symbolics Cloe returns (A B A B).
         KCL returns (A B A B) for lists.
         This value is forced by this proposal.

         Symbolics Genera and CMU Common Lisp return (B B).
         KCL does something bizarre for vectors (``pads with n blanks or
          NILs, where -n is the value of the :count keyword parameter'',
          says Touretzky.)
         These implementations would have to change.

     #3: All correct implementations presumably return (B B).
         This value is consisent with this proposal.

         Some implementations have been known to signal a wrong type
         argument error in the past, but have presumably been fixed.

     #4: Symbolics Genera and Symbolics Cloe return (B A B).
         CMU Common Lisp returns (B B).
         These behaviors are consistent with this proposal.

     #5: Symbolics Cloe and Symbolics Genera signal an error.
         CMU Common Lisp returns (A B A B).
         These behaviors are consistent with this proposal.

    Cost to Implementors:

      Some implementations would have to change. These functions are typically
      heavily optimized by compilers. Not only source code, but also compiler
      optimizers and perhaps even microcode or hardware might have to be
      modified to fully accomodate this change, so it might be quite expensive.

    Cost to Users:

      None for Common Lisp users. This change is an upward compatible
      clarification of standard practice.

    Cost of Non-Adoption:

      The behavior of these functions when given degenerate keyword values would
      be unintuitive. In many such cases, considerable additional user code must
      be written to watch for and avoid creating such situations.

    Benefits:

      More compact, more intuitive, and more portable code.

    Aesthetics:

      This change improves language aesthetics.

    Discussion:

      In the past there has been some argument about what SUBSEQ should do when
      given positions greater than the length of the sequence.  Currently it
      "is an error" to specify positions less than zero or greater than the
      length of the sequence.  Touretzky doesn't think the same should apply to
      the :COUNT keyword. The inputs to SUBSEQ are ordinal numbers: they specify
      positions, like array subscripts.  The value of :COUNT is not an ordinal,
      it is an upper bound on the size of the set of affected items (which is
      a cardinal number).

      Pitman supports this proposal. [Hopefully Touretzky supports it, too?]

      van Roggen says he personally supports the stated proposal but that a
      survey he did of users at DEC showed up a number of people who thought
      that negative count arguments should be an error.

Copyright 1996-2001, Xanalys Inc. All rights reserved.