Wed, 21 May 1997 00:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
JH> Is a possible invocation of set-version-limit, but as '(a . b) will
JH> probably soon be garbage it's hardly sensible. Well, if (set-version-limit)
JH> returned it's argument, then you could do a setf on the result, thus
JH> changing '(a . b), but this is a contrived example. I still think it
JH> doesn't make much sense on having versioning on something that can't
JH> be referred to by name.
Anything _can_ be referred to by name.
(setq *happy-name* (cadar *sad-name*))
Unless you just mean versioning on symbols.
JH> The exception would be that possibility for reversible execution that you
JH> mentioned. I guess in those limited contexts you might want versioning on
I'm not sure why you want this extra lowlevelness, wouldn't a transluscent
versioning container do the trick?
Just forwards all method calls onto the most recent version, unless
you use its versioning-api?
Maybe I've missed the point.