Re: [comp.lang.lisp] Re: accessor name clashes when using packages

[Marius Vollmer]

Gary Houston <address@hidden> writes:

> > What srfi-1 should probably do is to explicitely overwrite the
> > definitions in `core' when it gets loaded, or make the extended
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this: is it that a module that needs
> to redefine a core feature (i.e., anything available by default at
> startup) would go and hack the new definition directly into the
> conflicting module?

Yes.

> That could be a bit dodgy.

Yep, agreed.

> > semantics of srfi-1 _be_ the core definitions.  Let's just do the
> > latter.  That is, `iota' in boot-9.scm is replaced with the code from
> > srfi-1.scm and srfi-1.scm does not define `iota'.
> 
> Would it not be better to remove iota from boot-9.scm, given that it's
> available in srfi-1?

That would be an incompatible change, as you say yourself.  Do we want
that?