[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: making gf lambda lists
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: making gf lambda lists
- From: Ken Kahn <Kahn.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 11:36:03 PST
- Cc: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM, common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <19871124015712.1.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> It's always a metter of philosophy whether to bring functions like
this
> that we know are in there someplace out into the open and give them
documented
> names. I like the SETF approach, which says to document only the
ones
> that the user really has to know about.
I agree with the philosophy but find it curious that the proposal to
have SETF named functions is to remedy the fact that the SETF macro
approach hides things which people discovered they sometimes need.
References
Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM's message of Mon, 23 Nov 87
20:57:00 EST -- making gf lambda lists