[plt-scheme] Does anyone use `set!' and `get!' patterns?

Yeah, similar, I'd say. Except that here you're also doing a pattern
match so you have all that going on at the same time.

Robby

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Joe Wells <jbw at macs.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Robby Findler" <robby at cs.uchicago.edu> writes:
>
>  > No, I don't think so -- get and set patterns aren't just that. They
>  > bind mutators and gettors to some place down inside some value.
>
>  Is this like Common Lisp setf/getf?
>
>  --
>  Joe
>
>
>
>  > Sam
>  > isn't proposing to get rid of the ML-like dereferencing ref cells.
>  >
>  > Robby
>  >
>  > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Joe Wells <jbw at macs.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>  >> "Sam TH" <samth at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>  >>
>  >>  > Currently, "plt-match.ss" and scheme/match (in v4) provide `set!' and
>  >>  > `get!' patterns, which bind mutators and accessors for the matched
>  >>  > locations, respectively. While these look clever, they complicated the
>  >>  > implementation of match, and don't seem to be used.  In particular,
>  >>  > I've searched the entire collections hierarchy, and they don't seem to
>  >>  > be used at all.  Given this, I'd like to remove the implementations.
>  >>  > Does anyone else use them in their code, or have any reason that they
>  >>  > would want to?
>  >>
>  >>  ML has this feature in pattern matching (in SML a pattern like "ref x"
>  >>  dereferences a mutable cell and binds its current contents to x).  So
>  >>  presumably PLT can claim to implement a superset of ML pattern
>  >>  matching.  Without this feature, ML fanboys could say "but you don't
>  >>  have mutator patterns, so our language is better, ha ha ha".
>