with-accessors

[Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM]

    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.
-------