Re: I must be going mad!

ms> As you saw, my Scheme implementation (Scheme 48) isn't willing Stephen> This is publically available, right? (I'm to do a introductory Stephen> presentation on Python at a LUG, contrasting Scheme, Elisp, and Python Stephen> on this point seems like a useful thing to do.) Oh yeah. http://www.s48.org/ ms> to do this---this is due to proper checking of read-only ms> status for heap objects. Stephen> Ah, I see. Stephen> [...] Notations defining places are the same for read and Stephen> write so effectively there are no write notations except Stephen> setf. As to setf, you might want to look at the discussion for SRFI 17 "Generalized SET!" http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-17/ Stephen> Python also provides an alist-like literal notation for Stephen> hashes, which have a subset of the sequence APIs (ie, APIs which imply Stephen> order are missing, but notations for the common APIs are the same). Stephen> That actually is quite reminiscent of the style you favor, it seems to Stephen> me, but Python enforces it and provides some syntactic sugar. The nice thing about Scheme is that you can define your own syntactic sugar. There, hygienic macros help. A great deal. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla