Subject: Re: Setting keys/values in alists
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/11/04
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Robert Monfera <>
| I have read all answers (thanks!) and remain convinced that structs
| should be deprecated, being used as legacy or performance enhancements
| (for which declarations are invented).

  You guys seem to forget that structures can be used to describe the
  data in lists and vectors, too, and that this is sometimes useful.
  I'm sure you think that's to be deprecated, as well, but I'd call on
  people to start looking for babies in all the bathwater that is
  being thrown out around here.  If you use structures as weak or
  small objects, hey, sure, no wonder you come to the conclusion that
  they are just like classes, only a little less so, but that is not
  _all_ that structures are about.  There is overlap in functionality,
  but if you ignore what is not overlapping while you hype your desire
  to deprecate them, which is worse of someone who is disregarding
  those other things and needs on purpose and somone who argues very
  well for deprecating something that he does not fully appreciate?
  If it weren't for a particularly bad choice of Presidents of the
  United States looming over us all, I'd say that one should throw out
  of the discussion people who display a disdain for the legitimate
  positions of their opponents, because their conclusions will have
  built in a disdain for _some_ needs, and that invariable means some
  _future_ needs.

  I implore you all to consider what it would take to change your mind
  on whatever it is you believe.  Methodologically, it has no value to
  have yet another affirmation of some claim if no counter-claims have
  been allowed.  Some defenders of the faith (because that is what it
  becomes) believe that counter-information, counter-views, etc, are
  "subversive" and "dangerous" and should be controlled or stopped,
  but as soon as you do, the first you lose is credibility: Bystanders
  and freethinkers within alike _must_ believe that _you_ have reason
  to believe that what you defend is not true or at least not the best
  of what is true.  Sadly, many people value agreement with some
  position over its credibility, as if they _want_ to believe in that
  position specifically more than believe in whatever is good and true.

  The lack of consideration for what structures do that classes do not
  is perhaps the best argument yet for belaying the order to deprecate.

  Does anyone remember where I parked Air Force One?
                                   -- George W. Bush