[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: perhaps I've missed something ...

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.

At 6:05 PM -0500 1/20/00, Lars Thomas Hansen wrote:
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?

Specifically and emphatically the latter.

Thanks for the clarification.