[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SETF and pathname slots
- To: ghenis.pasa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: SETF and pathname slots
- From: Randyemail@example.com
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 10:39 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 16 Apr 87 17:01 PDT
Should the standard require SETF to handle pathname slots? If we are
going to have MAKE-PATHNAME, PATHNAME-DEVICE, etc, for consistency we
should also have COPY-PATHNAME and be able to do things like (SETF
(PATHNAME-TYPE old-path) "OLD"). Is there any reason not to?
Probably not, since a lot of implementations might want to cache
pathnames (so they are EQ). You could have COPY-PATHNAME take
keyword arguments of slots to change in the copying process.
Or you could probably use MERGE-PATHNAMES for these sorts of