[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Status of SETF functions in Common Lisp

    Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 00:14:17 PST
    From: Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>

	Date: Thu, 4 Feb 88 14:46:35 PST
	From: Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>
	re: But, haven't we already extended symbol-function to take lists of the 
	    form (setf fn) as an argument.  If not, how do we get hold of setf 
	I don't recall how the recent discussions on this mailing list suggested
	to do it.

      This was in a cleanup proposal which the Cleanup committee already approved,
      submitted to X3J13 in November, and was approved by X3J13 at that time.  I
      wasn't there, so I don't know for sure what happened, but I don't think
      there was any voting.  Perhaps there was some kind of verbal approval.
      Anyway my point is that this is as settled an issue as any issue can be
      and there's a place where the answer is written down.  I don't have a copy
      of it myself or I'd send it to you.

    You're jumping the gun here.  The issue of (setf fn) as a function name
    came up as a need from CLOS, but was never presented for approval.

Then I guess one of Larry's status reports saying that issue had been approved
was mistaken, or I misread it.

    assigned a sub-sub-committee to try to write up some proposal that would 
    encompass "function specs".

That's exactly what I did -not- want to happen.  If setf functions,
which CLOS needs, get bogged down in all kinds of extraneous issues
about function specs, which CLOS does not need and does not want,
CLOS could end up getting the shaft.  I think standardizing function
specs for Common Lisp is likely to be a fine thing, but I don't want
CLOS to have to wait for it to be completed.

    We (this sub-sub-...) have met by conference phone, and discussed what 
    to do; initially Bob Kerns is working on a "definition specs" proposal 
    that will clean up and extend the LispMachine's functions specs somewhat. 
    But we all feel that this is new development -- not just a simple 
    "clarification", or "cleanup" or minor extension to Common Lisp, and 
    more serious thought needs to be given to the question.  Most likely 
    there will much discussion about it in Palo Alto next month.

    The only thing that's been settled so far is that we all agree on the
    need to do something.  The actual scope of what is done, the names
    of the constructs, and as Danny asks "how do we get hold of setf 
    generic-functions?" are hardly a settled issues right now.  At any rate, 
    I think he (Danny) was just asking how "we", the CLOS development, 
    proposed to get access to these things.

I guess I should wait until there is a report of the sub-sub-committee
to read, before drawing any conclusions or making any more intemperate