David Rush <xxxxxx@bellsouth.net> writes:

> And neither are lexical-set! nor global-set! part of at least five
> Schemes, and they are certainly not R5RS. What's your point?

Sorry.  I meant lexical-set! as a shorthand for "set! to a
lexically-bound variable" and global-set! as shorthand for "set! to a
global binding".

> Of course this begs the question of definition. I consider an
> assignment operator to involve an update to the store. If I can define
> set! without reference to the store then it's not an assignment
> operator.

I think that is a fallacy.  Whether you can *define* set without
reference to the store has nothing to do with whether set! is an
instance of the concept of "assignment operator".

> Changing the name to setf! (SET! via
> Function) would still be a better idea, so at least you're not
> encouraging implementors into a specific implementation of set!

I don't think of srfi-17 as "encouraging implementors into a specific
implementation".  If srfi-17 has that effect, then those are
implementors who should probably not be implementing Scheme ...
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/