This, however, conflicts with regular assignment. It's ambiguous in that it's quite context-dependent. For instance:
arc> (= y '(1 2 3))
(1 2 3)
arc> y
(1 2 3)
arc> (= (car y) (list 1 2)) ;we're accessing y, not assigning to car
(1 2)
arc> y
((1 2) 2 3)
arc> ;but what of this? x isn't a function, though
;the syntax is kind of inconsistent if used for both purposes
(= (x y) (list 1 2))
Error: "reference to undefined identifier: _x"
However, you can still do multiple assignment; just not destructuring assignment:
arc> (= x 1 y 2)
2
arc> x
1
arc> y
2
You could instead define, e.g.:
(mac ds= (vars vals)
`(set ,@(apply + nil (map list vars vals))))
Then:
arc> (ds= (x y) (1 2))
2
arc> x
1
arc> y
2
Which, confidentially, doesn't work for using literal lists in the 'vals position as you did, but that should still be doable. Could also use '= instead of 'set, if you still wanted to do something like:
arc> (ds= (x y) ((list 1 2 3) (list 4 5 6)))
(4 5 6)
arc> x
(1 2 3)
arc> y
(4 5 6)
arc> (ds= ((car x) (cdr y)) ('a 2))
2
arc> x
(a 2 3)
arc> y
(4 . 2)
I do like the idea of conceptually merging hash tables and arrays, or at least think it should be explored.
