-;;; Given a list of keyword substitutions `(,OLD ,NEW), and a
-;;; &KEY-argument-list-style list of alternating keywords and
-;;; arbitrary values, return a new &KEY-argument-list-style list with
-;;; all substitutions applied to it.
-;;;
-;;; Note: If efficiency mattered, we could do less consing. (But if
-;;; efficiency mattered, why would we be using &KEY arguments at
-;;; all, much less renaming &KEY arguments?)
-;;;
-;;; KLUDGE: It would probably be good to get rid of this. -- WHN 19991201
-(defun rename-key-args (rename-list key-args)
- (declare (type list rename-list key-args))
- ;; Walk through RENAME-LIST modifying RESULT as per each element in
- ;; RENAME-LIST.
- (do ((result (copy-list key-args))) ; may be modified below
- ((null rename-list) result)
- (destructuring-bind (old new) (pop rename-list)
- ;; ANSI says &KEY arg names aren't necessarily KEYWORDs.
- (declare (type symbol old new))
- ;; Walk through RESULT renaming any OLD key argument to NEW.
- (do ((in-result result (cddr in-result)))
- ((null in-result))
- (declare (type list in-result))
- (when (eq (car in-result) old)
- (setf (car in-result) new))))))
+;;; not used in 0.7.8, but possibly useful for defensive programming
+;;; in e.g. (COERCE ... 'VECTOR)
+;;;(defun list-length-or-die (x)
+;;; (or (list-length x)
+;;; ;; not clear how to do this best:
+;;; ;; * Should this be a TYPE-ERROR? Colloquially that'd make
+;;; ;; lots of sense, but since I'm not sure how to express
+;;; ;; "noncircular list" as a Lisp type expression, coding
+;;; ;; it seems awkward.
+;;; ;; * Should the ERROR object include the offending value?
+;;; ;; Ordinarily that's helpful, but if the user doesn't have
+;;; ;; his printer set up to deal with cyclicity, we might not
+;;; ;; be doing him a favor by printing the object here.
+;;; ;; -- WHN 2002-10-19
+;;; (error "can't calculate length of cyclic list")))