[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: *** POLL *** Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: *** POLL *** Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 17:19 PST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-4.text.newest
- In-reply-to: <881130-103422-2216@Xerox>
- Line-fold: no
I continue to believe that there are two completely seperate topics:
1) Should setf be changed to have a default behavior of calling some
function whose name is derived from the "accessor. Doing this allows
one to define functions or generic functions without having to deal
with defsetf or friends.
2) If 1 is accepted, what should the name of those "setf functions" be?
One solution is so called "function specifiers". Another solution
is to have half function specifiers. I still believe the best solution
is just to use symbols everywhere even in defmethod and defgeneric forms.
I don't expect to see this be separated this way, nor do I expect that
function specs will really go away as much as they should. At this point I
promise not to argue about this at X3J13 meetings anymore. But I may sulk
about it some!