Re: List container strawman 1.2

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <3bf14919$1@pull.gecm.com>, Martin Dowie says...
>
>"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
>news:dibI7.23087$xS6.35921@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3BF052D3.ECEF3FF2@san.rr.com>, Darren New says...
>> >
>> >Ted Dennison wrote:
>> >> there is better. "Font" and "Back" are pretty standard terminology for
>list
>>
>> Hmmm. Reading this over, "Head" and "Tail" are actually more usual, aren't
>they?
>
>I don't know if it is a "ML" thing (Brian?) but a list of a tail
>used to be the list that was left (possibly empty) after the head
>was removed and not an element within a list.

It occured to me over lunch that this list type is actually missing exactly
those routines (CDR and its tail-oriented equivalent) if we were to truly make
it usable in the Lisp style. So perhaps Front and Back should stay as is, First
and Last should also become Front and Back, and Head and Tail should be new
functions returning the *rest* of the list minus Back and Front respectively?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.