Re: SETF and friends [and the "right" name problem]

[JonL at PARC-MAXC]

Apologies for replying so late to this one -- have been travelling for a week
after AAAI, and *moving to a new house* -- but I want to add support to
your comments.

Two issues seem to be paramount here:

1) I too would not like to see this change, specifically because it would
   incompatibly destroy the name for the time-honored SET function, and
   this surely falls into the category of "gratuitous" incompatibilities which
   CommonLisp promised not to do [I don't particularly like the notion of
   "fixing up" oddball names, such as HAULONG, but at least in that one
   case the number of users who've ever used HAULONG is probably a drop
   in the bucket compared to those who've ever used SET].

2) It must be an inevitable consequence of standardization in a large community
   that undue proportions of time are spent arguing over the "right" name for
   some functionality -- according to reports, this happened in the PASCAL
   world, so at least in one dimension Lisp is beginning to look like Pascal.

   "Right" apparently means "English-based and functionally descriptive", and
   so often one man's mnemonic is another man's anathema.   I think it must be
   conceded that for frequently used primitive operators, a short name, even if
   nonsensical, is to be preferred to a "right" one.  E.g.,  CONS is better than
   ALLOCATE-NEW-LIST-CELL.  

   Couldn't we resist the urge to rationalize every name?