[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
- Subject: &whole
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 1984 01:35:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 5 Sep 1984 18:29-EDT from JonL.pa at XEROX.ARPA
- Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
Yeah, I remember most of that discussion. My position was (and still
is) that specific destructuring forms like DELET and DESETQ would be
fine, if we could agree on the syntax and come up with better names than
those, but that I was (and still am) adamantly opposed to any attempt to
incorporate destructuring into existing forms like DEFUN, LET, and SETQ.
One reason why we never made any progress on defining a set of standard
destructuring operations is that every time the subject came up, it
turned into an argument about whether to mess with Defun and all the
other existing forms that might also be destructured.
My vote would be to consider the proposed Destructuring-Bind by itself,
without getting into those related issues yet again.
I guess I don't see any need for a non-error checking version of this.
Can anyone suggest a situation in which such a thing would be useful?
- From: "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>