Pascal J. Bourguignon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| awhite <email@example.com> writes:
| > Rob Warnock wrote:
| >> Plus, it would improve improve portability, since the above is
| >> almost as easy to type as (APPLY #'+ NUMBER-LIST), and would
| >> thus discourage that latter, unsafe-for-portability practice.
| > how is (APPLY #'+ NUMBER-LIST) unportable? To my novice eyes
| > it looks very elegant.
| Because of call-arguments-list. The portable form is:
| (if (< (length number-list) call-arguments-limit)
| (apply (function +) number-list)
| (reduce (function +) number-list))
Yup. What Pascal said... ;-}
That's why I keep suggesting that slightly-enhanced CL:REDUCE.
 Well, A quick search shows that I've only suggested it about
four times (1998, 2003, 2004, 2008). Note that previously I
suggested that the new keyword be called :MAX-ARGS rather
than :MAX-ARITY -- I have no clue why I went with the latter
this time. Doing an APROPOS in CMUCL suggests that :MAX-ARGS
would probably be a better choice.
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607