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

[Peter Bex]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:53PM -0500, Felix wrote:
> Yes, that's one. But we shouldn't starting counting now. What
> is desirable? That's the importand question.

Consistency is important; it's cleaner and also easier to remember.

> We could just as
> well use a parameter-like interface. I like the accessor + 
> setter approach, I find it somehow elegant and it allows the
> use of the modification-forms from miscmacros. It also reduces
> namespace clutter. But that's just my opinion and my personal
> preference.

I don't have a strong preference. I think setters are elegant in
their own way, but they're also slightly "weird" in that they're yet
another mechanism which is not strictly necessary, and setters are not
first-class (though they can be reified by using (setter ...) AIUI),
which makes them feel out of place (they're a bit "unschemely").

Since we have plenty of setters already and like you said, it unclutters
the API and is easy to remember and most importantly it just WORKS, I'm
happy with having setters only.

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