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

[Felix]

From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:16:34 +0100

> 
> So it's too early for the poll then?  Or are we voting on the
> proposal of having a getter+setter?

I don't know - unless someone speaks up for a different naming
style, we should simply assume this is acceptable.

> 
> 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 ...))


cheers,
felix