This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the guile project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: setf.scm writes:
>> I'm just thinking from a CLOS point of view now...
>> Shouldn't [(set! (PROC ARGS ...) RHS)] expand to something like...
>> (setter RHS PROC ARGS ...)    ? [rather than ((setter PROC) RHS ARGS
>> Because if setter is a CLOS method, it would most likely want to
dispatch > on >the type of ARGS, especially ARG1. Therefore shouldn't it be
one of the > arguments >to allow dispatch? It also seems cleaner if the
ARGS and PROC are > kept together. >Procedure and arguments evaluated the
same way and all that.
>Perhaps, but I think expanding to ((setter PROC) RHS ARGS ...) is simpler.
>Note there is nothing to prevent (setter PROC) from evaluating
>to a generic function, which dispatches on RHS+ARGS to select the
>correct method.  So you have the flexibility you want, but separate
>into two parts: (1) mapping from PRC to its setter (2) applying the
>setter, which may involve multi-method dispatch [assuming you have
multi-method >dispatch, of course].

 Can you explain how you would implement (setter ...) ? I can't quite
 see how it works.