Re: delete command weirdness

Well it appears I started quite the **** storm. I know I'm not writing
the spec for CL or maintaining a particular implementation, as some of
the respondents to this thread are. However, I am not nearly as
noobish as many of my questions were taken, or as I might have
appeared. I have a very different perspective, however, and lisp is
not my first language.

I'm sorry for my snarky comments, but they were largely because of
frustration because the answers I was receiving were missing the key
questions I had. I apologize, because this is probably due to my
limited vernacular for discussing these types of questions amongst
lisp people. The original posts being at 2:00 in the morning because I
couldn't sleep, might have something else to do with it.

My initial confusion was over the fact that I thought delete was a
function was designed for its side effects, not speed, as I am informed.

>> If you did what he suggested, you would understand why the DELETE
>> function can't possibly do what you expected. No function can change a
>> binding in its caller's scope. Try it. You'll be completely stumped.

This above is indicative of where the miss-communication was. I
understand that functions cannot change bindings. However, because I
thought that delete existed for its side effects, this lead to two
questions:

Q1. Why design delete this way? Why not use a macro?

A1. Its a function you idiot! (What I realize now what people were
saying was that it is not designed for its side effects, but hopefully
you can understand why exactly I thought that was a non-sequitur)

Q2. Why exactly can delete destructively change how the cdrs in its
target list are bound? IE if changing the binding of variables is
forbidden, what exactly is different about the cdr's in the list?

A2. ....

This is where my lack of understanding of lisp comes in. This is also
where my vernacular is lacking. If I can explain it in terms of
pointing, using my original example:

testing -> (a . -> (b . -> (c . -> (d . -> nil)))

You follow?

Where exactly is this description wrong? (I am assuming it is in some
way).

If this is accurate, then why are changing some assignments forbidden?
For the sake of keeping things "functional?"

> Yeah, but I was completely wrong when I said the light would then go
> on for Natty Dread: this clown is so wrapped up in what he "knows"
> that he cannot hear a word we say.
>
> I hope he stays around, he's funny. :)

Yes, you have proved how stupid I am. I'm glad to have amused you. I
hope I have explained why exactly "I didn't hear" what you were
saying, why I thought the discussion was pedantic, and why I've
reposted this so we can rip into eachother some more.

-Nat