Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Redefining read-eval-print loop.
Message-ID: <30097@think.UUCP>
Date: 31 Oct 88 19:13:09 GMT
References: <3185@mit-amt> <593@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> <41800@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 18

In article <41800@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>  All that has been proposed is
>that the functions that are part of the language definition be effectively
>declared INLINE.  (ie, that they can be changed but that the changes may
>not propogate to all of their uses.) 

Not really.  An ordinary INLINE declaration can be lexically
overridden by a local NOTINLINE declaration.  (declare (notline eval))
is not guaranteed to get around this particular issue.

Also, the other issue of redefining standard functions it the
undefined effect it will have on other standard functions.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar