[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Redefinition of Common Lisp Functions
- To: Jim Kempf <kempf%hplabsc@HPLABS.HP.COM>
- Subject: Redefinition of Common Lisp Functions
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1987 15:07:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of 14 Apr 1987 20:06-EDT from Jim Kempf <kempf%hplabsc at hplabs.HP.COM>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Attempts to directly redefine
the functions may cause an error to be signalled.
This technique would require no changes in the standard, or
the standard could be toughened up to require that an error
be signalled, as long as it is not toughened to the point
where shadowing Common Lisp functions is an error.
Unless I missed something, nobody is proposing that SHADOWING a built-in
function using the package system should signal an error or should "be
an error". That's what the package system is for.
Clobbering the definitions of built-in symbols in the Lisp package is
another matter. I think there's pretty general agreement that this
should be an "is an error situation", and that it would be tasteful to
at least issue a warning in such cases, perhaps under control of a magic