Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!mcsun!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: char-upcase settable?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pitcairn
Message-ID: <DwwqtJ.850@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh
References: <4vj25k$n35@tools.bbnplanet.com> <3049801031853023@arcana.naggum.no> <4vlfi2$p7i@tools.bbnplanet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:22:30 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <4vlfi2$p7i@tools.bbnplanet.com> barmar@tools.bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>
>My other objection to (setf char-upcase) is that (setf (<function>
><constant>) <value>) seems conceptually wrong to me.  This would be like
>allowing (setf (1+ 2) 4)!

What's wrong with (setf (<fn> <const>) <value>)?  Do you also object 
to (<fn> <const> <const>), as in e.g. (get 'a 'b)?   And how about
setf of symbol-value, symbol-function, and symbol-plist?  How are
they conceptually wrong?

-- jd
