At 6:05 PM -0500 1/20/00, Lars Thomas Hansen wrote:
>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?

Specifically and emphatically the latter.

Thanks for the clarification.

john