SET vs. SETF

[Earl A. Killian <Killian at MIT-MULTICS>]

    Date: 25 August 1982 15:31-EDT
    From: Alan Bawden <ALAN at MIT-MC>

    Changing SETF to SET at this point seems like the height of gratuity.  If we
    are going to get involved in general name changes like this I can generate a
    list of about 100 (reasonable) name changes that can keep us busy for months
    arguing about their various merits.

Back when the number of objectionable names (to me) in the language was
around 100, I was reluctant to suggest changes (though I have certainly
been guilty of it several times).  I have been pleasantly surprized to
find that most of those names have been fixed in some way or another
(there were 35 or so renamings at the last meeting alone!), to the point
where only nconc (nappend), nreconc (nrevappend), and [f]makunbound
(make-unbound?) really seem objectionable to me.  I decided to suggest
changing SETF now because, 1) SET was no longer around, 2) SETF is going
to be very common (more than it is now) and a shorter, easier to
pronounce name would be nice for writing new code (no reason to go back
and changes all the existing SETF's since there can be a simple synonym),
and 3) Common Lisp is already making a lot of changes in this general
area (e.g. eliminating aset, vset, setplist, etc. etc.).