[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Status of SETF functions in Common Lisp
- To: labrea!masinter.PA%Xerox.COM@labrea.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Status of SETF functions in Common Lisp
- From: Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 88 20:37:43 PST
- Cc: labrea!CL-Cleanup%SAIL@labrea.Stanford.EDU, labrea!Common-Lisp-Object-System%SAIL.labrea!Moon%STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM@labrea.Stanford.EDU, labrea!RG%AI.AI.MIT.EDU.sun!franz!smh@labrea.Stanford.EDU, labrea!rwk%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@labrea.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: masinter.PA@Xerox.COM's message of 11 Feb 88 10:00:26 PST <880211-100052-7099@Xerox>
re: The issue SETF-FUNCTION-VS-SYMBOL was distributed and tentatively approved
at the November 1987 meeting of X3J13.
The issue name was SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO:SETF-FUNCTIONS
It had two parts:
(1) Specify that the expansion of SETF is into a function rather
than merely into a "macro";
(2) Allow a generalized name for this function.
The discussion under this issue is what led to formation of the
"definition specs" group. I doubt that anything that comes up
under the broader scope could conflict with the minimal assumptions
stated in that proposal. In particular, a nomenclature style like
(SETF FN) must be acceptable, and #'(SETF FN) will designate the
function so named.
I certainly remember the overwhelming approval for this direction of
extension, but I think the reason it didn't just end with this single
proposal is that every place that accepts function names is involved,
not just SETF methods.
-- JonL --