From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA22888 for caml-red; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:11:29 +0100 (MET)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA12830 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:30:52 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (tequila.cs.yale.edu [128.36.229.152])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eA3HUpT23371
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:30:51 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by tequila.cs.yale.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14218
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:30:47 -0500
To: caml-list@inria.fr
From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists.caml/news/@RUM.cs.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: lists.caml
Subject: Re: Redefinition doesn't work
References: <20001102144509.A5788@blue1.berkeley.edu> <200011030921.KAA21301@pauillac.inria.fr>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.90
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Path: rum.cs.yale.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: rum.cs.yale.edu
Message-ID: <3a02f642$1@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Date: 3 Nov 2000 12:30:42 -0500
X-Trace: 3 Nov 2000 12:30:42 -0500, rum.cs.yale.edu
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

>>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr> writes:
> I remember my surprise when I was porting to Scheme some fancy
[...example of bad things happening with redefinition...]

Don't get me wrong.  The "always redefine" approach is just as wrong
as the "never redefine" used by Caml.  It's just that sometimes you want
one and sometimes you want the other.

I remember a proposition for Scheme (maybe from Matthias Blume) to use
`set!' for redefinition and `define' to create a whole new binding.

I'm not sure if Scheme ended up providing such a facility, but it
does sound right to me.


        Stefan