[verandacoffee]

In the first installment of this series, the author use := for assignment, instead of setf. This is at least using undefined behaviour, as keywords are meant to be constant symbols, not themselves assignable to. Sbcl allows assignment to the function slot of a keyword, but LispWorks doesn't. Using undefined behaviour almost certainly guarantees incompatibilities between implementations, and should always be avoided. Here, it is a central feature. This makes the book untrustworthy, whatever good features it might have.

I must point out that setf is extensible (defsetf and so on) and therefore much better anyway.

(I must say though that one of the poor choices made in the C-family of languages is the choice of = as assignment, when Algol already had used := for this.)

[vseloved]

This was already discussed in great detail (greater than such minor thing should be) in the comments to the first and next chapter. And, by the way, Lispworks also allows it (see here: https://github.com/vseloved/rutils/pull/39 - a person even bothered to provide a fix to make it work there). So, get over it: this book is not about nitpicking but about trying to explain things in an intelligible and accessible manner. A luxury I didn't always have with these topics...

[verandacoffee]

I'm not sure pointing out undefined behaviour is nitpicking. It could in some cases be crucial. At the very least, it ties your code to only some Common Lisp implementations.

I know you can assign to keywords in LispWorks (using a restart), but that should be done in your rutils library, wrapping the definition of :=, :*, :/. And then you should do the same for all other implementations, which may differ in what condition is signalled, and whether there really is a restart for this, and of course whether it actually is allowed in that implementation.

[vseloved]

Sorry, getting back to the initial point: can you point to a statement in the standard that forbids assigning to symbol-function of keywords or dims it unspecified behavior? I see only this: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/t_kwd.... that doesn't state anything like this. Besides these constraints, the keyword symbols are normal symbols so they should abide by the same rules.

[verandacoffee]

Following your link: "3. It causes the symbol to become a constant variable." and following the link to constant variable: "constant variable n. a variable, the value of which can never change; that is, a keyword[1] or a named constant. ``The symbols t, nil, :direction, and most-positive-fixnum are constant variables.''"

This doesn't mention the function slot of the symbol, so one could perhaps argue that therefore the function slot is not meant to be a constant variable, but one could equally well argue the opposite. The various implementation obviously differ on this. That alone means that this is either undefined behaviour, or that some of them have this as a very long-standing bug, at least since their inception.

[vseloved]

> This doesn't mention the function slot of the symbol, so one could perhaps argue that therefore the function slot is not meant to be a constant variable

Exactly

> but one could equally well argue the opposite

No, as variables and functions are different parts and there's a more general rule about functions applied to keywords.

Your argument seems to be based on a notion that keywords are something unique and special in CL. They are, but only to the extent that is specified in this section. Otherwise, they are the same as other symbols.

To me, Lisp is not about "forbidden all that's not explicitly allowed", but about "allowed all that's not explicitly forbidden" mentality. And it's, actually, an important trait of the language that makes me value it more than others. So, sorry, I value your opinion, but I think that such things as := need to exist if only to broaden the horizons of people with such opinions :)

[verandacoffee]

> ...I value your opinion...

And I value your work on this book.

I apologize for having said at the beginning that "This makes the book untrustworthy, whatever good features it might have." It was unwarranted, and not substantiated, and much too harsh.

I do however stand by my claim that it is undefined behaviour. (You could help by making the suggested changes to rutils.)