Page 1 of 1
Question on OOPCL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:19 pm
by macrolyte
I'm reading
OOPCL, and could use some help with a term.
OOPCL wrote:
The name of the writer generic function is the list (setf lock-owner). This list is not a form to be evaluated; it is the name of the function—in
other words, it is the "function specifier."
I've never seen the term "
function specifier" before, could someone please explain what this means in context with the text. Also, I've been searching the
Hyperspec, and I haven't found any reference to "This list is not a form to be evaluated" in regards to the writer generic function which is generated by the
:accessor slot option. Could someone assist on where I might find more information? Thanks.
Re: Question on OOPCL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:55 pm
by macrolyte
I
think I've found the answer to my first question
here:
CLTL wrote:
[X3J13 voted in March 1989 (FUNCTION-NAME) to use fdefinition in the previous paragraph, as shown, rather than symbol-function, as it appeared in the original report on CLOS [5,7]. The vote also changed all occurrences of function-specifier in the original report to function-name; this change is reflected here.-GLS]
So "function specifier" is probably an archaic for "function name" since
CLTL wrote:
The function-name argument is a non-nil symbol or a list of the form (setf symbol).
which is as it should be. I still need help with the second question though. Thanks
Re: Question on OOPCL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:58 pm
by Goheeca
Look at that this way: the list doesn't make sense for evaluation. It's only notation which roughly means that the foo is
defsetfed. By the way, I like the
setf (an abbreviation of set function) facility -- the declarative attitude very much.
The similar thing works in scheme:
really means:
Code: Select all
(define pow2 (lambda (x) (* x x)))
Although the setf in a definition and in an application looks differently against in scheme's example. The declarative attitude is the same.
Re: Question on OOPCL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:33 pm
by macrolyte
Goheeca wrote:
Look at that this way: the list doesn't make sense for evaluation. It's only notation which roughly means that the foo is defsetfed. By the way, I like the setf (an abbreviation of set function) facility -- the declarative attitude very much.
So that's it! That was bugging the hell out of me. I just want to be sure of the concepts involved. BTW
setf was my first "aha" moment in Lisp when I realized what all a
place could be! Thanks so much. I plan on finishing the book in about a few weeks, so I'll probably have
more questions. Pax.
Re: Question on OOPCL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:49 pm
by Goheeca
Yeah, a great
example is here on this forum.
Re: Question on OOPCL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:04 pm
by macrolyte
One other question, does anyone know the status of Sonya Keene? She doesn't have a Wikipedia page, although she apparently worked for
Symbolics, which is just plain awesome in itself. Just my morbid curiosity kicking in... thanks.