perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 22:21 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 22:38 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(20 Jan 2000 22:52 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 23:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 22:58 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 23:05 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:12 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ... sperber@xxxxxx (21 Jan 2000 07:38 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 22:44 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:09 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(20 Jan 2000 23:01 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(20 Jan 2000 23:18 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(20 Jan 2000 23:55 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(21 Jan 2000 01:04 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 01:49 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(21 Jan 2000 02:40 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
thi
(21 Jan 2000 09:58 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 18:36 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(22 Jan 2000 10:32 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(23 Jan 2000 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(23 Jan 2000 20:50 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(23 Jan 2000 21:25 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(24 Jan 2000 07:30 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Michael Livshin
(24 Jan 2000 16:55 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2000 07:43 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Michael Livshin
(25 Jan 2000 11:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2000 11:31 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(25 Jan 2000 13:47 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(24 Jan 2000 07:29 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:59 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 00:18 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(21 Jan 2000 00:03 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 00:37 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(21 Jan 2000 08:39 UTC)
|
>>>>> "John" == John Clements <xxxxxx@cs.rice.edu> writes: John> Let me clarify. I have nothing against syntactic abstraction. My John> concern is primarily with the unnecessary overloading of the set! John> primitive. Replace set! with set-location! (or set-l! if you prefer) John> and you have a language extension which John> a) I would not personally use, but John> b) I would not object to (much). I totally agree. SET! modifies a *binding* which is a meta-level entity. SET-CAR! and friends modify *data structures* which are object-level entities. These are (to my mind) very different conceptually. Let's keep their names separate. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla