On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:54:08AM -0500, Felix wrote: > > 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 ...))
I know I could but it's inconsistent not to provide it by default. Unless you're planning to deprecate other setter procedures too, of course. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
