Re: with-accessors

[Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD%jenner.csc.ti.com@RELAY.CS.NET>]

         Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 14:29 EST
         From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
     
     	Date: Tue, 22 Dec 87 18:18 PST
     	From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
     
     	(with-accessors ((x position-x)
     			 (y position-y))
     			p1
     	  (setq x y))
     
         I like this.  I think we should put it in.
     
         Is (with-accessors (x y)
     		       p1
     	  (setq x y))
         allowed for consistency with with-slots?  It would only work for classes
         that use the naming convention that accessor function names are the same
         as slot names, which might mean that its existence leads to confusion.
         Hence I suggest that we should not allow this abbreviated syntax.
     
     I agree that we should not allow this abbreviated syntax.  I meant to
     address that specifically in my message but I seem to have forgotten.
     -------

That sounds good.
Patrick.