[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: setter problem
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: setter problem
- From: Chris Dollin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 09:47:48 GMT
| We're considering changing setter syntax so that it doesn't look so
| much like an operation. Your mistake probably wouldn't have come up
| if (setter a) were spelled set-a.
Why not do it the way T and Pop do, and make setter be a function?
(The only argument I've heard against this is that you'd like to be able to
export the accessor and not the setter of a function, which is easy if they're
symbols. But it seems to me that (a) you can get that effect by introducing an
auxilliary function, and (b) if it's that common, you can introduce export
syntax to have the system do it for you. Compared to the simplicty and
elegance of procedures-with-setters, this seems a feeble case. IMAO.)
Regards, | "C gains much of its vaunted efficiency by employing a very
Kers. | powerful pre-processor, usually called a ``programmer''."