[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Richard L. Bryan <RLB@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
- Subject: Re: pathnames.
- From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 15:25 EDT
- Cc: Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA, schumacher%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <851015142135.3.RLB@PETREL.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 14:21 EDT
From: Richard L. Bryan <RLB@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Perhaps SETF of pathname components should work the same
way as SETF of LDB.
As former pathnamemeister for Symbolics (theoretically retired)
I concur with Moon's analysis and RLB's suggestion.
For uniformity we could extend this to other read-only accessors
like SYMBOL-NAME, and DENOMINATOR although it's hard to see it as
useful in the former case, and it's pretty strange in the later
(and probably indicative of a woefully ineffecient program).