Scheme language standardization process
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 > 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. > > 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.) Helmut _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports