SET vs. SETF

[FEINBERG at CMU-20C]

Howdy!

    Date: Tuesday, 24 August 1982, 03:29-EDT
    From: David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC>
    To:   Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>, EAK at MIT-MC
    cc:   Common-Lisp at SU-AI
    Re:   SET vs. SETF

    Renaming SETF to SET would be a bad idea, because there is a whole
    family of xxxF functions.  Some of them are modified versions of
    functions without the F, so you can't just take the F off of all
    of them.

Looking over my copy of the Colander Edition I find the following xxxF
functions:

SWAPF, EXCHF       -- These are being removed from the language.  Better
		      names are being found.

INCF, DECF	   -- These can be changed to INC and DEC with no name
		      conflict.

PUTF, GETF, REMF   -- These functions seem useless to me.  Why not
		      just 
    Back in about 1973 when SETF was part of DEFSTRUCT, its name meant
    "set field".  It doesn't exactly mean that any more, of course.