John Clements:

>Let me clarify.  I have nothing against syntactic abstraction.  My
>concern is primarily with the unnecessary overloading of the set!
>primitive.  Replace set! with set-location! (or set-l! if you prefer)
>and you have a language extension which
>a) I would not personally use, but
>b) I would not object to (much).

So are you suggesting that (setl! var val) == (set! var val) and also
that (setl! (car x) val) == (set-car! x val)?  Or are you suggesting
only the latter?

--lars