Re: Quick question about lexically scoped defun...

["David L. Andre" <DLA@jasper.scrc.symbolics.com>]

    Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 20:43 PDT
    From: Siskind.pa@Xerox.COM

	All the complexity in that function is to be able to ask an intelligent
	question.  If you don't want the question asked, replace it with:

	(DEFUN ENCLOSE-TOP-LEVEL (LAMBDA ENV NAME)
	  ENV)

	I agree that there should be a parameter to control this.

    I had a function that was defined in a non null lexical environment.
    I first compiled it and got the apropriate warning to which I
    answered Yes. I then made the above change to ENCLOSE-TOP-LEVEL
    and recompiled the function. I got this compiler warning:

    Compiling DEFINE-CLAUSE-SET SIMPLE-EXAMPLE
    For Function SIMPLE-EXAMPLE-2
      Function SIMPLE-EXAMPLE-2 is being redefined with an unsafeguarded definition.
      Its previous definition was safeguarded.

    What does this mean? Will non-null lexical environments work now?

I cannot reproduce this.  However, you can safely ignore the warning.
Please send me a complete example which generates the warning.

	    Jeff
    -------