[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 10:09:06 +0100
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYO47riX9egqJ6U2CJ5jMbq5W2ktYaajs8mRcfiyY=Vemail@example.com> (Alex Shinn's message of "Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:02:40 +0900")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAMMPzYOay-HMGMsoUameUtP5Kq+hnbEuEyqXCAtmZv7XkQU=vA@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAMMPzYO47riX9egqJ6U2CJ5jMbq5W2ktYaajs8mRcfiyY=Vfirstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Nov 14 2012, Alex Shinn wrote:
> 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.
Then why can you say that a REPL "should" support redefinition?
(Without defining what redefinition means.)
Scheme-reports mailing list