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.
David Rush <kumo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > And your arguments are at best partial approximations to the actual > semantics of set!. The more that I ponder the issue, the more > clear the *difference* between set! and structure update becomes. set! > makes changes in the bindings of its continuation, structure-update > makes global changes in a data structure. This fastidiousness is all very well, but it is not Scheme. Only lexical-set! can be claimed to "make changes in the bindings of its continuation", whereas global-set! "makes global changes in a data structure". > set! is more like a function > call, structure updates are simple assignments. Well, that is certainly an unusual view-point, as it is backwards from how Scheme is normally presented. > But you seem to be missing objection class 3: set! is not an > assignment operator (although it can be implemented as one). If the term "assignment operator" has any meaning at all, then clearly set! is an assignment operator. I'm not the one trying to change the meaning of commonly used terminology. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.bothner.com/~per/