sionescu at common-lisp.net
Tue Dec 16 15:33:07 EST 2008
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:47 -0600, Robert Boyer wrote:
> > SETQ is a special form. It cannot be written by a
> > simple macro.
> I get dumber every day, but I increasingly enjoy it
> every time that someone shows me how wrong I am.
> What's so bad about:
> (defmacro new-setq (x y) `(set ',x ,y))
> In my remarks, I was thinking rhetorically and
> historically about Lisp way back at its creation in the
> 50s, way before the terms 'special form' and 'special
> operator' and 'special' were coined. No doubt you are
> right, though, in a fine sense.
Quoth the HyperSpec, "If any var refers to a binding made by
symbol-macrolet, then that var is treated as if setf (not setq) had been
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/attachments/20081216/4bef7085/attachment.bin
More information about the Openmcl-devel