[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

global function namespace given too much weight perhaps?

To: Fahlman @ CMU-CS-C
Subject: global function namespace given too much weight perhaps?
From: George J. Carrette <GJC @ MIT-MC>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 1984 21:50:00 -0000
Cc: common-lisp @ SU-AI
In-reply-to: Msg of Thu 22 Nov 1984 13:12 EST from Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at CMU-CS-C.ARPA>

Seems there is a hole here, or at least a gratiutious inconsistency,
in that there is a (call it) variable namespace binding construct,
LET, and a cooresponding side-effect construction, SETQ, and there
is a function namespace binding construct, FLET, but the side-effect
construction FSETQ (if you will) is missing.

Given that it is missing, can we give a reasonable justification for
that, or can we fix the inconsistency?

Prev by Date: global function namespace given too much weight perhaps?
Next by Date: Re: left to right order of evaluation
Previous by thread: global function namespace given too much weight perhaps?
Next by thread: global function namespace given too much weight perhaps?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread