Re: Question about call-next-method

Hmm… sometimes your rhetoric goes off the rails. 

I applaud anyone exploring language facilities, even abusing them to see what would happen. Not all of us are steeped in the Language Legalese, and yet I do think that all of us should be permitted to continue using our computers. 

Now, if you are programming life-critical systems, or systems intended to keep us safe, then yes, one ought to have a substantial level of expertise.

But from what I can see among the participants on LISP-HUG, the general level of expertise here, far exceeds current industry standards.

> On Nov 16, 2025, at 11:16, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 16 Nov 2025, at 17:30, Bradford Miller (as gorbag at icloud dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> One can already redefine common functions in the middle of a program and use them unless their calls were compiled
> 
> Try to read what I wrote.  I'll quote it here:
> 
>> Still less should the behaviour of programs which might add, redefine or remove methods to a generic function while it is being called be defined.
> 
> 
> Do you see the bit I have now emphasized above?  So what you are asking or is not 'redefining functions and using them': it is redefining functions that are in the process of being called and then expecting that the new definition takes effect for that call.
> 
> (Redefinition of ordinary functions is in fact allowed not 'unless they were compiled', but unless their callers were in the same file or they're declared inline.).