GETPR

[Fahlman at CMU-20C]

I think that Feinberg underestimates the value of retaining Maclisp
compatibility in commonly-used functions, other things being equal.

On the other hand, I agree that GETPR and friends are pretty ugly.  If I
understand the proposal, GETPR is identical to the present GET, and
REMPR is identical to REMPROP.  Only PUTPR is different.  How about
going with GET, REMPROP, and PUT in new code, where PUT is like PUTPROP,
but with the new argument order?  Then PUTPROP could be phased out
gradually, with a minimum of hassle.  (Instead of PUT we could use
SETPROP, but I like PUT better.)

-- Scott
-------