Re: Why wasn't I told about logbitp?!
- From: Kent M Pitman <pitman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 May 2008 00:48:31 -0400
Stanisław Halik <sthalik+usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
thus spoke "Frank \"frgo\" a.k.a DG1SBG" <dont-email-me@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Now ... would it be possible to write a setf-expander for logbitp?
Not without violating package locks, no.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by the question, but I'd say
only in the most literal reading of the question is this so.
Personally, I'd just say that's what shadowing is for. :) I have packages
that shadow a number of CL symbols that I don't like the definitions of
and I just provide my own definitions. And no one has to care.
After all, there is no value to writing a setf-expander for the sake
of packages other than your own or people who plan to use yours. And
if they do, then they'll generaly be just as happy with a shadowed
symbol. (Well, I can imagine a few situations where that isn't so,
but probably they don't apply to an obscure symbol like this one.)
- Prev by Date: Re: implementation for Parsing Expression Grammar?
- Next by Date: Re: Why wasn't I told about logbitp?!
- Previous by thread: Re: Why wasn't I told about logbitp?!
- Next by thread: Re: Why wasn't I told about logbitp?!