[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SETF
- To: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
- Subject: Re: SETF
- From: Guy.Steele at CMU-10A
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 80 21:19:00 GMT
- Cc: bug-lisp at mit-ai, bmt at mit-mc
- In-reply-to: JONL@MIT-MC's message of 13 Aug 80 22:41-EST
- Original-date: 15 August 1980 1719-EDT (Friday)
Anyone who uses the value of SETF deserves to lose. However,
for consistency it would be best if is returned the "second argument"
by analogy with SETQ, I believe.