Subject: bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:18:20 -0700

On 4/28/20 9:36 PM, Drew Adams wrote:
> Elisp is like CL was BEFORE the proposal I quoted,

No, that's backwards. CLtL1 was hazy, but arguably would have disallowed Elisp's
behavior because it arguably required the interpreter to immediately respond to
changes in objects currently being executed, and arguably required the
interpreter to not coalesce identical literals, and the Elisp interpreter
violates both requirements. In contrast, CLtL2 allows the Elisp behavior, so
CLtL2 is the better way to go here.