From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.esat.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: do `accessors' have to be functions? References: Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3219476301603126@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:58:23 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 1010487503 193.71.66.49 (Tue, 08 Jan 2002 11:58:23 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 11:58:23 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:23856 * Sam Steingold | I am just trying to figure out whether I must provide function | definitions for all (SETF ...) macros in CLISP. The proper interface to setf is through the macro expansion. If that macro expansion returns a simple function, I think it is appropriate to let that function be named (setf ...) rather than some weird internal name. If that macro expansion does not return a simple function, well, the question is moot. /// --