Re: Redefining structure accessors (summary)

* Raymond Toy [2010-03-16 14:37+0100] writes:

> Let's see if I can summarize the discussion.
>
> Attempts to redefine structure accessors should be a cerror.  If you
> continue, then the structure is undefined (mostly) and the function is
> created.  This seems better than the current behavior of just warning
> you about it and undefining the structure anyway.
>
> (compile accessor new-def) should also be a cerror.
>
> (setf (fdefinition accessor) new-def) shouldn't do anything special.
>
> The structure printer and inspector should be modified to use
> %instance-ref so that we can still print and inspect structures even if
> the accessor has been redefined.
>
> How does that sound?

Fine with me.

Helmut