Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!wacsvax.OZ.AU!nick
From: nick@wacsvax.OZ.AU (Nick Lewins)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Question with binding
Message-ID: <"19890421152425.8.schreq@MC"@MICKEY-MOUSE.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: 21 Apr 89 15:24:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27

Just to further the argument about redefining primative functions, TI's PC 
Scheme behaves like this:

(define + 
  (lambda (x y n)
    (modulo (+ x y) n)))

(+ 1 2 3)               ==>  0

(define blah
  (lambda ()
    (+ 1 2 3)))

(blah)                  ==>  6

I realise that + is treated specially, but this seems to be an undesirable 
(and inconsistant) way to handle primative function redefinition.  What's
more, the values of pcs-integrate-integrables and pcs-integrate-primatives 
don't seem to affect this behavior.  Comments anyone?

Nick.
-- 
-------------------                      
nick@wacsvax.uwa.oz                "Through Nambocour, and up the coast,
Dept. of Computer Science           the grass is greener, the girls are sweeter,
University of Western Australia     I did it all in the last ten summers."
CRAWLEY 6009                           - Cold Chisel, "Hound dog"