From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: setq x setf
Date: 2000/06/15
Message-ID: <3170059273480607@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634874019
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <0f106a56.4f744979@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com> <w4or99zltjg.fsf@lovecraft.irtnog.org> <u7k8frtldm.fsf@o2-3.ebi.ac.uk>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 961075206 5050 195.0.192.66 (15 Jun 2000 13:20:06 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jun 2000 13:20:06 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Philip Lijnzaad <lijnzaad@ebi.ac.uk>
| But SET has been officially deprecated ...

  I think this was a bad idea.  I completely fail to appreciate some
  of the deprecations -- most of them give me this icky Scheme feeling.

  (remove-if-not <obvious-function> ...) is supposed to be inferior to
  (remove-if (complement <obvious-function) ...)?  I'm _so_ thrilled
  with the double negative, already, I really need _complement_!  And
  (set <symbol> <value> is inferior to (setf (symbol-value ...) ...)?
  Gimme a break!

  Deprecation is a signal to the community that it needs to evaluate
  its habits and signal the committee back if it deems them valid.
  For instance, there's no doubt that :test and :test-not had fuzzy
  semantics when combined and non-trivial prophylaxis, but that
  doesn't mean the *-if-not functions suffer similarly fuzziness.

  I use set when I actually have symbols that I don't _want_ to be
  some general data structure.  Symbols are special animals in many
  ways, and I don't want to bury that in a "call" to symbol-value.

#:Erik, ¢2
-- 
  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.