[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
- Subject: Re: &whole
- From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 1984 19:29:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>'s message of Wed, 5 Sep 84 10:05 EDT
You may remember that since 1979, MacLisp (and NIL too, I believe) have
had DESETQ for a "destructuring" version of SETQ, and have extended
DEFUN and LET to do full destructuring on their "lambda" lists. (ALAN
may also have produced a version of these things for the Lisp Machine).
There was a small amount of discussion on this point, oh maybe two years
ago, in the Common Lisp mails, with one suggestion being to extend the
notion of destructuring/lambda-binding to every position that is
"analogous" -- this would mean in the lambda-list of DEFUN, in lambda
((LAMBDA (...) ...) ...)
as well as in LET.
The idea died back then because enough people didn't see a compelling
similarity between the argument "spreading" (Interlisp word!) in
DEFMACRO and that in the other places like DEFUN.
-- JonL --