[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ISSUE: DEFSTRUCT-REDEFINITION
- To: masinter.pa%Xerox.COM@multimax
- Subject: Re: ISSUE: DEFSTRUCT-REDEFINITION
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 11:04:58 EDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup%SAIL.Stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of 28 Jul 88 21:58:08 -0700.
Programming environments are allowed, encouraged, etc. to allow such
redefinition, perhaps with warning messages. It is beyond the scope of
the language standard to define those interactions, except to note
that they are not portable. I don't think it is a cop-out. I
certainly don't want an error to be signalled. I'm lacking a good
terminology for describing the "is an error" situation that I think
this should be.
Why not "is non-portable"?