Quoting Christophe Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's generally not a good idea to be a language lawyer unless ...
99% of the lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. > > Should I have at least been issued a warning of some sort?!? > > Yes, probably. But here we are arguing about what is desireable, not > what is mandated. Caveat Emptor. I'll tread more carefully from now on. > > > You created an infinite regress. I certainly did trigger that "undefined behavior." (note to self: don't use CL for that nuclear reactor project). > > In any case, I wouldn't call this a "feature." > > I think everyone is agreed on this -- death of the environment is > never a good thing. Nonetheless, inside the interpreter and the > compiler there will be some things that you must not redefine unless > you really really know what you are doing. So (defun car (a) (unix-fork)) might be a bad idea, huh? > "So don't do that". I won't. Thanks for all the input. --w Wayne O. Cochran Assistant Professor of Computer Science Washington State University Vancouver [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
