This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 17 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 17 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
John Clements: >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). So are you suggesting that (setl! var val) == (set! var val) and also that (setl! (car x) val) == (set-car! x val)? Or are you suggesting only the latter? --lars