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

(setf (not x) y) => (setf x (not y))

To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: (setf (not x) y) => (setf x (not y))
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 86 03:35 EDT
Cc: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12224247468.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1986  15:16 EDT
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    OK, I considered those suggestions as seriously as I could, and to me
    they look utterly worthless and needlessly confusing.  Unless you can
    demonstrate some good use for these constructs that could not be done
    much perspicuously and clearly using existing mechanisms, I suggest we
    drop this.

    -- Scott

I have had "structure accessors" which worked by doing 1- on a stored
field that had to be stored 1-origin for some reason.  After about
the third occurance of this, it was tempting to write a DEFSETF for
1- instead of for my accessors.

References:
- (setf (not x) y) => (setf x (not y))
  - From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

Prev by Date: (setf (not x) y) => (setf x (not y))
Next by Date: Re: Some easy ones (?)
Previous by thread: (setf (not x) y) => (setf x (not y))
Next by thread: Re: (setf (not x) y) => (setf x (not y))
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread