Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setq
Setq[edit]
There's no real need to describe this or any other Common Lisp special form in such detail. Where would it all stop? Wikipedia isn't a programmers reference. --Goblin 02:19, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd think Wikipedia could do without all of the Reference Manual things; there are zillions of man pages online, and they're simply not necessary here. rm, printf, and such just seem a waste of infinite space. Delete. --jpgordon {gab} 02:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This definately goes too far. Belongs to whatever Wiki it is that has textbooks. Wyllium 03:10, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
- B-b-but setq is vital to my life! (But no one else's. Delete.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 07:42, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
- Transwiki to
wikisourcewikibooks. (and for all other lisp statements too) Kim Bruning 10:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Delete. Wikipedia is not a lisp reference manual. --Improv 19:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Transiwiki to Wikibooks. —siroχo 20:40, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep! Keep! Keep! How can I liveth without thee, O my holy SETQ, and thy Schemeish cousin set! And how many a beginning Lisp programmer have been a bit confused by thy implementation as a macro, rather than a normal function, for that is the only way thou canst automatically QUOTE thy argument???? --137.111.13.34 10:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We cannot list every common function in every common programming language — We also have a C standard library category with strcpy, strcat, strlen functions in it so far. There are other Lisp function name articles that might be deleted at the same time — cons, Car (function), and cdr. If someone wants to make a list of all these and put them all in for deletion at the same time then they will get my vote. --Jll 13:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Goblin says Wikipedia isn't a programmers reference but I say Wikipedia should be about the totality of the human experience. Since programming is something humans do, I see no reason to exclude it Cabalamat 21:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful, informative, significant. There are a lot of bizarre details about Lisp, but setq is on the right side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. setq, car, cdr, and cons are pretty significant constructs in all Lisp dialects. Everyone who does functional programming (> 100000 people at least) or has done in past 30 years (even more people) knows what they are, but might benefit from reading a quick overview from Wikipedia. The really obscure functions no one uses don't deserve articles, but the one's that illustrate a certain programming paradigm should be included. jni 05:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't setq just the Lisp version of "=" in other computer languages. I could be persuaded to keep cons, car and cdr as they are unique concepts to Lisp. But they need to be understood together (along with cadr, cdar etc. and the IBM 704) so should redirect to a single article somewhere. Like you I feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I would put setq on the other side of it. And the article assumes that the reader knows Lisp anyway. Otherwise they might struggle with the examples (setq a (1+ b) b (1+ a) c (+ a b)). And (let ((x (list 10 20 30))) (symbol-macrolet ((y (car x)) (z (cadr x))) = no chance. Being told that "If any var refers to a binding made by symbol-macrolet, then that var is treated as if setf (not setq) had been used." doesn't really help --Jll 13:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment But we have an article about = (which fails to mention the usage in computing though), so why not an article about setq? I agree with you in that the examples are not suitable for an introduction. In fact, they have been copied verbatim from Common Lisp specs here. There is a potential copyvio, because the License does not seem to be compatible with requirements for Wikipedia: Permission to make partial copies is expressly NOT granted ... Permission to make modified copies is expressly NOT granted. I have added a copyvio tag into the article. In summary, I believe this to be a valid topic for Wikipedia, because some encyclopedia about functional programming would almost certainly include setq, but I agree with others that the current implementation of this article is lacking, requiring a near-complete rewrite. jni 07:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't setq just the Lisp version of "=" in other computer languages. I could be persuaded to keep cons, car and cdr as they are unique concepts to Lisp. But they need to be understood together (along with cadr, cdar etc. and the IBM 704) so should redirect to a single article somewhere. Like you I feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I would put setq on the other side of it. And the article assumes that the reader knows Lisp anyway. Otherwise they might struggle with the examples (setq a (1+ b) b (1+ a) c (+ a b)). And (let ((x (list 10 20 30))) (symbol-macrolet ((y (car x)) (z (cadr x))) = no chance. Being told that "If any var refers to a binding made by symbol-macrolet, then that var is treated as if setf (not setq) had been used." doesn't really help --Jll 13:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is legitimate information. --209.94.128.82 18:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)