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)