GNU bug report logs - #26540
25.2; [PATCH] Add cl-set-equal to test for set equality

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 26540 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Damien Cassou <damien <at> cassou.me>
Cc: 26540 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#26540: 25.2; [PATCH] Add cl-set-equal to test for set equality
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:00:52 -0700 (PDT)

> >> This patch adds cl-seq-equal to test whether two lists have the
> >> same elements. I.e., if every element of LIST1 also appears in
> >> LIST2 and if every element of LIST2 also appears in LIST1.
> >
> > Common Lisp (and the Emacs emulation) already has set
> > functions that do this - `[cl-]set-exclusive-or', for
> > example.
> 
> are you saying that (1) I should propose an implementation of
> set-equal based on set-exclusive-or (I guess it's just a `not`
> call away) or (2) not propose set-equal all together? I understand
> (1), but not the reasoning behind (2).

I'm just pointing out that a function we already have,
and one that is used more widely by users of Common
Lisp, does the same thing - unless I'm missing something.

If people think that some users might not think to use
`set-exclusive-or' to test set equality then we could
add a `set-equal' function.  Common Lisp didn't think
so, and neither do I, but I wouldn't oppose adding it.

If we do add it, I'd imagine that the implementation
should be the same (adding `not', as you say), for
clarity and consistency - unless other things are not
equal for some reason (i.e., unless there is a good
reason not to use the existing implementation).

In sum, I don't oppose adding it.  I'm just pointing
out that we already have it, in another form.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.