🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13508@ucla-cs.ARPA> hydar@ucla-cs.ARPA (Dan Hydar) writes:
>
>     
>        Does anyone know if Scheme is defined such that ANY binding can be
>   changed or is there some set of functions/identifiers that can be (or
>   MUST be) prevented from being re-defined?
>
>        For instance --- are you able to do blatantly stupid things like:
>
>                        (define car  5)


As a matter of fact, redefinition of the PAIR abstraction (mainly CAR,
CDR, and CONS) is the subject of a number of examples in Abelson and
Sussman's _Structure_and_Interpretation_of_Computer_Programs_.
Exercises 2.3 and 2.4 ask the student to define a new implementation
for the "primitives" which preserve their functionality.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------

ARPA: SMC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
USENET: ...!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!smc%mit-oz