On Wed, Nov 14 2012, Alex Shinn wrote:Then why can you say that a REPL "should" support redefinition?
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Eller <eller.helmut@x> wrote:
> 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
> > 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.
> We could say that iff everyone agreed on what should happen.
(Without defining what redefinition means.)
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports