Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!umd5!uther.cs.purdue.edu!gatech!udel!princeton!siemens!steve
From: steve@siemens.UUCP (Steve Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: lisp environments summary
Message-ID: <345@siemens.UUCP>
Date: 11 Dec 87 15:07:24 GMT
References: <1254@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> <339@siemens.UUCP> <13427@think.UUCP>
Reply-To: steve@siemens.UUCP (Steve Clark)
Organization: Siemens RTL, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 17

In article <13427@think.UUCP> barmar@sauron.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
>I think this one assumes that the changes to structures and functions
>are made as you type them.  This would make it difficult to edit
>functions that are part of the Lisp terminal interface.
>
>This argues just as much against structure editing as it does against
>the single-address-space style of Lisp Machines.

It does not argue at all against structure editing.  It is a point against
editing the current function definition, as opposed to a copy.  (Of course,
the only languages I know of where a text editor could possibly edit the
current function definition are Jovial and Basic.)  In Interlisp it is
easily possible to set yourself up with a little facility to edit copies
of functions and install all the copies simultaneously.

Steve Clark
(maybe steve@siemens.com or princeton!siemens!steve, maybe not)