Re: do `accessors' have to be functions?

Subject: Re: do `accessors' have to be functions?
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:58:23 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <3219476301603126@naggum.net>

* Sam Steingold <sds@gnu.org>
| I am just trying to figure out whether I must provide function
| definitions for all (SETF ...) macros in CLISP.

  The proper interface to setf is through the macro expansion.  If that
  macro expansion returns a simple function, I think it is appropriate to
  let that function be named (setf ...) rather than some weird internal
  name.  If that macro expansion does not return a simple function, well,
  the question is moot.

///
--