Subject: Re: setq setf From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 22:57:05 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Kent M Pitman <email@example.com> | I think of the difference between SETQ and SETF as being "assignment" vs | "side-effect" and regard it as a linguistic irritation that SETF is | allowed to assign variables, though it obviously has a place (pardon the | pun) in describing places. This distinction seems reasonable, and your explanation about doing something in a lambda is not lost on me, _but_ I conclude that special varriables are therefore different from lexical variables, in that you _can_ pass a symbol to a lambda and have it "side-effect" that binding, or, as it might be implemented, the symbol-value slot, so one should use SETF on special variables. Or do special bindings offer the same kind of "encapsulation" that symbol-macrolet does? | But that's just me. I'm not really advocating anyone think like me. I'm | just noting that there is this other pont of view. I'm presently torn | about how to present this issue in books I'm working on, and am leaning | toward just saying to use SETF in spite of my personal preference. There seems to be an important distinction between lexical and non-lexical data in here, somewhere. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.