This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Suggestion for strings.c


Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> writes:

> > > I hope not.  From reading the SRFI I got the impression that:
> > > 
> > > a) it suggests that a "getter" procedure returns a location and
> > >    set! changes this location.

A "getter" returns the *contents* of a location, and set! changes the
(contents of) this location.

> [From the SRFI]
> 
> Rationale
> 
> Many programming languages have the concept of an lvalue. that is an
> "expression" that "evaluates" to a location, and which can appear on
> the left-hand-side of an assignment. Common Lisp has a related concept
> of "generalized variables" which can be used in setf and some other
> special forms. However, the Common Lisp concept is based on the idea
> of compile-time recognition of special "location-producing" functions;
> this does not seem to be in the "spirit of Scheme".

This is rationale, which provides some background.  Notice the phrase
"Many programming languages" and the quotes around "evaluates".

> > leaving aside the question of taste (I think it's a good replacement), 
> > you are wrong here.  you set the setter to set-validate-counter-value, 
> > et voila.
> 
> Or even better to: "format-hard-disk".  From the Emacs distribution:

If you have a point, I fail to see it.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]