[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 17:19:20 PDT
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, cl-cleanup@Sail.stanford.edu, unido!ztivax!kolb@seismo.CSS.GOV
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Sun, 18 Sep 88 15:17 EDT <19880918191704.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: I guess we have to go with LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION:DISALLOW. We
unfortunately have to include the part that prohibits lexically
shadowing (redefining is the wrong word here) functions in the ...
I very much dislike the use of "shadow" here, since it so readily invokes
the other meaning of SHADOW, which in fact has some bearing on the problem
(i.e., functions named by symbols with names like "IF" and "CAR"). At the
Palo Alto meeting in March of this year, I thought we started using the
term "lexical override"; or some such term. Anything but "shadow".
-- JonL --