[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: EAK at MIT-MC
- From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-AI>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1982 22:01:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp at SU-AI
The point is not to get rid of the setting functions, but to
reduce their status in the documentation. Actually getting rid of
them doesn't accomplish much, as you say, and also is too great
an incompatibility. (For the same reason, SETF cannot be renamed
to SET, but can be renamed to SETQ). But moving them all to an
appendix on compatibility and telling most users simply
"to alter anything, use SETF" is a tremendous improvement in
the simplicity of the language as perceived by users, even if
there is no change in the actual system that they use.
(At the same time, any plans to introduce new setting functions
that are not needed for compatibility can be canceled).