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 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 global binding". > 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 > operator. 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 ... -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.bothner.com/~per/