[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: hplabs!DCPemail@example.com
- Subject: Re: pathnames.
- From: schumacher%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
- Date: Friday, October 11, 1985 08:53:50
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Your message of 10-Oct-85 20:42:00
- Source-info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 20:42 EDT
From: "David C. Plummer" <hplabs!DCP%scrc-quabbin.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>
Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 16:06:07-PDT
The manual doesn't state explicitly that the accessor functions for
pathname objects are setf'able. Is this an oversight on my part, the
manuals part, or is there some justification for this. Admittedly the
desired effect can be achieved using make-pathname with the current
pathname as the :default and the desired change specified as a keyword
arg, but this seems sort of strange ...
Symbolics interns our pathnames. Is SYMBOL-NAME setf'able?
I'm not sure I understand this statement (question?). Are you interning
the namestring of the pathname ? Perhaps I should have been more specific:
given a path name (setq foo (pathname "<dir>foo.bar")) I want to change the
type field of pathname foo to be "jnk". Is it legal cl to say
(setf (pathname-type foo) "jnk") ? If this isn't legal then it seems that
the only way to do this is (setq foo (make-pathname :type "jnk" :defaults foo)).
Is that any clearer ?