[no subject]

[George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>]

I like your idea of putting names of optimizing-frobs
in/near the functional definition. 

"redefinition" is a funny thing.
If lisp were a compiled-only language then it would be simple
to have lexical macro or functional redefinitions, however, given
that the usual thing (i.e. Lispm & Maclisp) is to have the interpreter
be incompatable, using dynamic scoping exclusively, for efficiency,
then we have a messy problem.

[Maybe super-special-cases in the compiler, e.g. CAR/CDR (maybe)
 should be untouchable by the user, in that no redefintion mechanisms
 for them are seriously supported? Think about how even lexicality
 is destroyed by macro-expansions.]

The complexity of the options involved sounds like a flavour interface
to the COMPILER (oh great beast) is called for? (oh my...)

-gjc