From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Setting keys/values in alists Date: 2000/11/04 Message-ID: <3182339756617783@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 689613882 References: <3A00D270.19804A02@fisec.com> <3A036AD7.A78E7A44@fisec.com> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 973350972 21140 195.0.192.66 (4 Nov 2000 15:16:12 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Nov 2000 15:16:12 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * 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. #:Erik -- Does anyone remember where I parked Air Force One? -- George W. Bush