[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SET functions
- To: Morrison at UTAH-20, RMS at MIT-AI
- Subject: SET functions
- From: Earl A. Killian <EAK at MIT-MC>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1982 21:26:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp at SU-AI
Well if you're going to propose two changes like that, you might
as well do SETF -> SET, instead of SETF -> SETQ. It's shorter
and people wouldn't wonder what the Q or F means.
But actually I'm not particularly in favor of eliminating the set
functions, even though I tend to use SETF instead myself, merely
because I don't see how their nonexistance would clean up
anything.