[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: time to finalize srfi-17?
David Rush <kumo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> And neither are lexical-set! nor global-set! part of at least five
> Schemes, and they are certainly not R5RS. What's your point?
Sorry. I meant lexical-set! as a shorthand for "set! to a
lexically-bound variable" and global-set! as shorthand for "set! to a
> Of course this begs the question of definition. I consider an
> assignment operator to involve an update to the store. If I can define
> set! without reference to the store then it's not an assignment
I think that is a fallacy. Whether you can *define* set without
reference to the store has nothing to do with whether set! is an
instance of the concept of "assignment operator".
> Changing the name to setf! (SET! via
> Function) would still be a better idea, so at least you're not
> encouraging implementors into a specific implementation of set!
I don't think of srfi-17 as "encouraging implementors into a specific
implementation". If srfi-17 has that effect, then those are
implementors who should probably not be implementing Scheme ...