I dont understand. For example this is typical from red-black tree
(if (eq (p z) (left (p (p z))))
(let ((y (right (p (p z)))))
(cond ((eq (color y) :RED)
(setf (color (p z)) :BLACK)
(setf (color y) :BLACK)
(setf (color (p (p z))) :RED)
(setf z (p (p z))))
etc..
(sorry the formatting is strange on move to windows from linux emacs; dont
really know emacs but I am using ILISP)
where p is CLRS speak for parent. how would you improve something like this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Cracauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pat Monardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: SETF style
> Pat Monardo wrote on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:33:55PM -0800:
> > One thing I notice about working with structures is that there are a ton
of
> > SETFs. I am not comfortable using SETFs with multiple locations, ie
> > (setf x 1 y 2)
> > It seems like a maintenance hassle down the road.
> > But sometimes the set's are related and it is enticing to use the
multiple
> > location form.
> > Comments?
>
> You can also use symbol-macros like CLOS does for instance variables.
>
> I think the question is better on cmucl-help, moving there.
>
> Martin
>
