Re: delete command weirdness

pjb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:

> If you go this way, ALL the lisp operators (that take arguments) may
> take actually the value of a variable, and the result may be stored
> into that same variable, so they should all be defined as place
> modifying macros:
> 
> (deletef item list)            for (setf list (delete item list))

Just for historical completeness, DELETEF was the Maclisp name for
DELETE-FILE.  This is tickling a vague memory that there was a discussion
of adding a DELETEF as a SETF variant and having people say "maybe not".

Enough years have passed that this is probably not a fear any more.
But on the LispM, with both the old Maclisp names and the new CL names
active in the same environment (differing only by package) you can see
the fear it would lead to in designers not wanting to lead people down
the path to accidental file deletion.