Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424)

[Peter Bex]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:54:08AM -0500, Felix wrote:
> > Should we still have a separate set! procedure, aside from the
> > generic setter?  It would make sense to me, since most procedures
> > have both a getter and a setter procedure, regardless of whether
> > they have a generic setter.
> 
> You can always define a setter trivially:
> 
> (define set-... (setter ...))

I know I could but it's inconsistent not to provide it by default.
Unless you're planning to deprecate other setter procedures too, of
course.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth