From: Peter Bex <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:16:34 +0100
> > So it's too early for the poll then? Or are we voting on the > proposal of having a getter+setter? I don't know - unless someone speaks up for a different naming style, we should simply assume this is acceptable. > > Should we still have a separate set! procedure, aside from the > generic setter? It would make sense to me, since most procedures > have both a getter and a setter procedure, regardless of whether > they have a generic setter. You can always define a setter trivially: (define set-... (setter ...)) cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
