[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
At 6:05 PM -0500 1/20/00, Lars Thomas Hansen wrote:
>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?
Specifically and emphatically the latter.
Thanks for the clarification.