Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Immutable function bindings (was Re: ISO/IEC CD 13816 -- ISLisp)
Message-ID: <DKo7rq.Lw4.0.macbeth@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <19951215T014159Z@arcana.naggum.no> <4b35de$ilh@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <MAD.95Dec21180804@tanzanite.math.keio.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 19:07:01 GMT
Lines: 14

In article <MAD.95Dec21180804@tanzanite.math.keio.ac.jp> mad@math.keio.ac.jp writes:

>ISLisp's approach has a big disadvantage.  Although the draft states
>that it does not specify how to prepare an ISLisp text for execution
>and how to execute it, the fact that it forbids redefinition of
>functions effectively kills the usefulness of READ-EVAL-PRINT style
>interpreters.  Toplevel loop for ISLisp, if exists, will look more like
>GDB command line rather than ordinary Lisp environment.

I am not convinced that ISLisp forbids implementations from allowing
function redefinition.  What is your textual evidence from the ISLisp
definition?

-- jd
