Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com>
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
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
Rob Warnock, 30-3-510 <email@example.com>
SGI Network Engineering <http://www.meer.net/~rpw3/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
[Note: firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com aren't for humans ]