Subject: Re: How to split a string (or arbitrary sequence) at each occurrence of a value.
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: 30 Oct 2001 03:11:36 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <9rl5p8$466ss$>
Erik Naggum  <> wrote:
| ;;; * naming the function PARTITION rather than SPLIT.
|   I wonder how this change was chosen.  Where can I find the discussion?

I only saved a few of those, but here are some snippets from near the
end of the thread ("Subject: Re: (final?) PARTITION specification").
Hopefully the Message-IDs will help you find them::

	Date: 05 Jul 2001 10:23:25 -0400
	From: Marco Antoniotti <>
	Message-ID: <>
	I would use SPLIT-SEQUENCE and SPLIT-SEQUENCE-IF.  In this way
	it is clear that these functions work on any sequence.
	Date: 09 Jul 2001 23:46:56 +0100
	From: Christophe Rhodes <>
	Message-ID: <>
	I remain unconvinced by the legion clamouring for a name change from
	partition, to be honest. I think that anything I choose will either
	clash with something else or be hideously ugly (or both, of course);
	so I'm going to stick to my guns and go with PARTITION. Sorry if that
	makes the code or the specification unuseable by anyone.
	Date: 10 Jul 2001 14:01:07 +0200
	Subject: Re: (final?) PARTITION specification
	Message-ID: <>
	In any case, while I'm the original proponent of sticking
	to PARTITION, I'd like to add that I could also live with
	SPLIT-SEQUENCE or maybe SPLIT-SEQ, if it mattered.

The general sense I got was that a *lot* of people were initially for
SPLIT, but then someone mentioned a conflict with the series package,
so most shifted to SPLIT-SEQUENCE, with decreasing support for PARTITION
as time wore on... except for Christophe. [Apologies if I've severly
mis-stated anything.]


Rob Warnock, 30-3-510		<>
SGI Network Engineering		<>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA

[Note: and aren't for humans ]