Re: Redefinition of CL Functions

[Jim Kempf <kempf%hplabsc@hplabs.HP.COM>]

While I understand the concern about redefinition causing code
to become nonportable, I think a case can be made for redefinition
in experimental systems. Particularly when one is developing
embedded languages, the semantics of certain Common Lisp functions
may need to be changed. An example here is CommonObjects, which
extends the semantics of certain Common Lisp functions to include
user defined types. Naturally, this is not something one does
casually, in the course of developing a Common Lisp application,
but rather should be labelled by the developer as being an extension
to be used with care. A warning message upon redefinition would
be sufficient, signalling an error would remove some of the flexibility
which makes Common Lisp such an ideal environment for developing
embedded languages.

		Jim Kempf	kempf@hplabs.hp.com