[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
At 5:37 PM -0500 1/20/00, Lars Thomas Hansen wrote:
>... but I fail to see the appeal of this mechanism. As far as I can
>tell, a scheme implementation which conforms to this SRFI allows me
>(set! (car x) 5)
>(set-car! x 5)
It's useful for syntactic (rather than procedural) abstraction. It
allows you to write macros like this:
;; inc! increments whatever is stored in the "location" that
;; is its argument.
(set! ?loc (+ ?loc 1)))))
Without SRFI-17, you can at most pass a variable as a location:
(inc! x) => (set! x (+ x 1))
but with SRFI-17 you can do better:
(inc! (car x)) => (set! (car x) (+ (car x) 1))
(inc! (vector-ref v i)) => (set! (vector-ref v i) (+ (vector-ref v i) 1))
Let me clarify. I have nothing against syntactic abstraction. My
concern is primarily with the unnecessary overloading of the set!
primitive. Replace set! with set-location! (or set-l! if you prefer)
and you have a language extension which
a) I would not personally use, but
b) I would not object to (much).