-(defun %aset (array &rest stuff)
- (declare (truly-dynamic-extent stuff))
- (let ((subscripts (butlast stuff))
- (new-value (car (last stuff))))
- (setf (row-major-aref array (%array-row-major-index array subscripts))
- new-value)))
-
-;;; FIXME: What's supposed to happen with functions
-;;; like AREF when we (DEFUN (SETF FOO) ..) when
-;;; DEFSETF FOO is also defined? It seems as though the logical
-;;; thing to do would be to nuke the macro definition for (SETF FOO)
-;;; and replace it with the (SETF FOO) function, issuing a warning,
-;;; just as for ordinary functions
-;;; * (LISP-IMPLEMENTATION-VERSION)
-;;; "18a+ release x86-linux 2.4.7 6 November 1998 cvs"
-;;; * (DEFMACRO ZOO (X) `(+ ,X ,X))
-;;; ZOO
-;;; * (DEFUN ZOO (X) (* 3 X))
-;;; Warning: ZOO previously defined as a macro.
-;;; ZOO
-;;; But that doesn't seem to be what happens in CMU CL.
-;;;
-;;; KLUDGE: this is probably because ANSI, in its wisdom (CLHS
-;;; 5.1.2.5) requires implementations to support
-;;; (SETF (APPLY #'AREF ...) ...)
-;;; [and also #'BIT and #'SBIT]. Yes, this is terrifying, and it's
-;;; also terrifying that this sequence of definitions causes it to
-;;; work.
-;;;
-;;; Also, it would be nice to make DESCRIBE FOO tell whether a symbol
-;;; has a setf expansion and/or a setf function defined.
-
-#!-sb-fluid (declaim (inline (setf aref)))
+;;; (setf aref/bit/sbit) are implemented using setf-functions,
+;;; because they have to work with (setf (apply #'aref array subscripts))
+;;; All other setfs can be done using setf-functions too, but I
+;;; haven't found technical advantages or disatvantages for either
+;;; scheme.