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 13:56:15 +0100

> 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.

I think there aren't many left (at least in the posix unit).
`set-file-position!' is different (Alex kindly pointed out
the silliness of removing it), since it must accept multiple
arguments.


cheers,
felix