[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: EXTENSIONS-POSITION (version 1)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: EXTENSIONS-POSITION (version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 15:34 EST
- Cc: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <890131-112040-8084@Xerox>
Date: 31 Jan 89 11:18 PST
The compiler issue SHARP-COMMA-CONFUSION seems to imply that
implementations "could continue to provide #, as an extension". However, is
such an extension legal? Can't legal common lisp programs redefine #, if #,
isn't in the language? If they can, wouldn't it disallow having #, be an
Presumably the only thing that defining it as an extension can mean from
CL's point of view is `initially definining' it as an extension. Whether
an implementation permits you to redefine its extensions is between that
implementation and its users and beyond the scope of Common Lisp. For
example, it is common practice to redefine some kinds of system functions
in Genera -- to extend the system in interesting ways, to fix bugs, etc.
Given this, I don't see that there is necessarily a conflict.
I'm discussing this under EXTENSIONS-POSITION since the proposal itself for
#, didn't propose making it explicit in the standard that #, "was allowed
as an extension".