[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-ACCESS (version 1)
- To: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
- Subject: Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-ACCESS (version 1)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 16 Sep 88 00:04 PDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com's message of Tue, 13 Sep 88 12:30:52 PDT
Is it reasonable for implementations to extend the set of SETF-able forms? It
would seem to lead to more subtle incompatibilities, because there would be no
simple lexical analysis that would determine the use of an extension vs the
standard. Further, I don't think that HASH-TABLE-SIZE HASH-TABLE-TEST, are
reasonably SETF-able. If you change the :TEST, would would you do about entries
that now collide?
It would make more sense to make HASH-TABLE-REHASH-SIZE
both SETFable if it is reasonable to expect to do so.
I wonder before we add more "instance variables" for built in data structures if
we wouldn't be doing better if we made access to these via CLOS? I won't push on
that too hard....