[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: pathnames.

  Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 20:42 EDT
  From: "David C. Plummer" <hplabs!DCP%scrc-quabbin.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>

    Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 16:06:07-PDT
    From: SCHUMACHER%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

    The manual doesn't state explicitly that the accessor functions for
    pathname objects are setf'able.  Is this an oversight on my part,  the 
    manuals part,  or is there some justification for this.  Admittedly the 
    desired effect can be achieved using make-pathname with the current
    pathname as the :default and the desired change specified as a keyword
    arg,  but this seems sort of strange ...

  Symbolics interns our pathnames.  Is SYMBOL-NAME setf'able?

I'm not sure I understand this statement (question?).  Are you interning
the namestring of the pathname ?  Perhaps I should have been more specific:
given a path name (setq foo (pathname "<dir>foo.bar")) I want to change the 
type field of pathname foo to be "jnk".  Is it legal cl to say 
(setf (pathname-type foo) "jnk") ?  If this isn't legal then it seems that
the only way to do this is (setq foo (make-pathname :type "jnk" :defaults foo)).
Is that any clearer ?