More on memq



Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 4/12/08, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 
>>  I'm not sure how to make everyone (else) happy, but I would like memq
>>  defined as a macro, and its use encouraged.
> 
> OK. I think I've had enough of MEMQ for a lifetime or two.
> 
> Andreas, in the interest of simply reducing strife,
> please don't change any more MEMQ's.
> If someone wants to revert some MEMBER to MEMQ,
> that's OK by me.

I'd much rather see them all converted to member than leaving the code 
in this half-finished state.

Ray