Hi, This idiom has already been captured by the (>>foo) words.
There are always two setters: (>>foo) ( val obj -- ) >>foo ( obj val -- obj ) The latter is implemented as follows: : >>foo ( obj val -- obj ) over (>>foo) ; inline The former is the actual generic. Slava On Apr 10, 2008, at 5:02 AM, Maxim Savtchenko wrote: > In new tuple library there will be no set accessor with ( value tuple > -- ) stack effect? If so, it's sad. New accessors are short and really > useful while filling multiple slots of single tuple. But there is > common task of evaluating some complex value and setting it into > single slot of tuple, taken from dynamic variable or retain stack. > Because of that "swap >>slot drop" looks like common pattern. For me, > it will be useful to keep setters with old-style stack effect as > alternative form. May be ">>slot*", or something else? > > Maxim Savchenko. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save > $100. > Use priority code J8TL2D2. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone > _______________________________________________ > Factor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
