[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SET vs. SETF
- To: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>, EAK at MIT-MC
- Subject: SET vs. SETF
- From: David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1982 07:29:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp at SU-AI
- In-reply-to: The message of 24 Aug 82 00:33-EDT from Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
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.
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.