On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Helmut Eller <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14 2012, Alex Shinn wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Eller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 14 2012, Alex Shinn wrote: > > > > > In Section 5.2 says that a REPL should permit to redefine > existing > > > definitions. What should happen if a record definition is > > redefined? > > > Should existing record instances be considered instances of > the new > > > type? > > > > > > Again, implementations differ here so there's not much > > > we can say. Smalltalk-style class redefinition is a nice > > > feature, but fragile and not currently widely implemented. > > > > You can say what "should" happen. > > > > We could say that iff everyone agreed on what should happen. > > Then why can you say that a REPL "should" support redefinition? > (Without defining what redefinition means.) > This refers to redefining variables and syntax in general. For the specific case of redefining record types we could add a note that existing instances may or may not be mapped to the new type according to some unspecified semantics, but I'm not sure if such a note adds anything. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
