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


    Date: 6 May 85 20:44:26 EDT
    From: Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>

    The problem with the current definition is that it depends upon the
    implementation.  Rather than kludging up the definition more so that
    it properly describes hairier implementations of SETF, how about
    simply saying that SETF (APPLY must work for AREF, BITS, and SBITS,
    if those are the only useful cases.  

Wait a minute.  Those may be the only useful cases among the functions
listed in Common Lisp: The Language, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't user-defined functions that are equally as useful to SETF APPLY.
This is Lisp, the supposedly extensible and consistent language.