Re: set! prototype implementation

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

Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@MIT.EDU> writes:

> There are two remaining bugs that I see. I am not sure if these are
> artifacts of the prototype implementation or intentional, but either
> way they are wrong (IMO).

I don't think so.

> * All <procedure-with-setter>s appear to be effectively placed in the
> (ice-9 setters) module, unless I deeply misunderstand how the module
> system works.

You don't need to worry that the procedure-with-setter closure is
closed over the environment of the (ice-9 setters) module.  The
closure will still *behave* as if it was closed over the environment
of the getter since it immediately calls a closure which has the
"right" environment.

> * `getter' and `setter' are placed directly in a
> <procedure-with-setter>s environment, this may change semantics in
> unexpected ways,

No.

> especially given that `getter' and `setter' are also top-level
> bindings in the (ice-9 setters) module. In general a procedure's
> environment shouldn't be used to store auxiliary data.

Is this some kind of superstition?  :)

/mdj