[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 30 Nov 88 18:58 PST
- Cc: email@example.com, masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- In-reply-to: Gregor.pa's message of Wed, 30 Nov 88 17:19 PST
There are two other proposals which might also be considered on this issue:
Do not change the behavior of SETF regarding the default behavior if no
setf macro has been defined. Modify the sections throughout the CLOS
specification which refer to defining methods or generic functions which
affect the behavior of SETF.
The name of the SETF function associated with X is computed by
(INTERN (LET ((*PACKAGE* (FIND-PACKAGE "KEYWORD") (*PRINT-CASE* :DOWNCASE))
(FORMAT NIL "~S" X)) (FIND-PACKAGE "SETF"))
i.e., there is a package named SETF, and the SETF function for X is
computed by printing X with package qualifier and then interning the result
into the SETF package.
This only has problems if X is a symbol for which reading the printed
representation does not yield the same symbol.