[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:
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.