[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
- From: Helmut Eller <eller.helmut@x>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:22 +0100
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYOay-HMGMsoUameUtP5Kq+hnbEuEyqXCAtmZv7XkQU=vA@mail.gmail.com> (Alex Shinn's message of "Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:31:03 +0900")
- References: <m2mwyk8vzu.fsf@gmail.com> <CAMMPzYOay-HMGMsoUameUtP5Kq+hnbEuEyqXCAtmZv7XkQU=vA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 14 2012, Alex Shinn wrote:
> In Section 5.2 says that a REPL should permit to redefine existing
> definitions. What should happen if a record definition is redefined?
> Should existing record instances be considered instances of the new
> type?
>
> Again, implementations differ here so there's not much
> we can say. Smalltalk-style class redefinition is a nice
> feature, but fragile and not currently widely implemented.
You can say what "should" happen.
Helmut
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports