Slight rewrite and breaking change #3
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This nomenclature avoids defining a destructive function with the name similar to Common Lisp's standard and non-destructive UNION function.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This separate Pull Request is for changes you might not want to accept. One commit is some slight rewrites of things that bugged me in the source code, although they are subjective; the other is a breaking change that renames
disjoint-sets-uniontodisjoint-sets-unify. I think it is confusing to experienced CL programmers, familiar withcl:unionbehaving non-destructively, that a function whose name includes "union" would modify its argument. It might be preferable to name it likecl:nunion, the destructive variant; however I think these are sufficiently different that it is better to use separate nomenclature.