Re: setf.scm

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se>]

Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@MIT.EDU> writes:

> It definitely should be efficient. I think the right thing to do is to
> add an extra setter slot to procedure objects

I'm not happy about this.  Note that this would make closures
heavier.  It should be cheap to create closures in the interpreter.

Is the setf! functionality really useful enough to motivate making
closures heavier?

(I've actually been thinking about removing the procedure-property
 slot.  That would remove one level of indirection in the inner loop
 of the evaluator.)

/mdj