Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!barmar
From: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Putprop (or put) vs. setf with get
Message-ID: <4406@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 01:46:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4406
Posted: Thu Jun  6 01:46:17 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 02:00:25 EDT
References: <374@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Reply-To: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 10


OK, I stand partially corrected on the setf vs putprop issue, thank you.
Yes, a Common Lisp must have something analogous to putprop, if only for
the setf to expand into.  However, Winston & Horn were correct in
describing setf rather than this function, as setf is the construct
reccommended by Steele in the CL spec.
-- 
    Barry Margolin
    ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
    UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar