Re: defconst

[Stefan]

> I believe it would be better if `defconst' behaved like `defconstant'
> in CLISP: throw an error if the user or a program tries to change the
> value through anything else but a second defconst.

I obviously agree since that's what my local Emacs does ;-)

> Maybe it might not be advisable to make such a change before the
> release, but what about after it?  I bring it up now, because a
> decision on this might affect what we do with current defconst's.

I haven't pushed for such a thing (other than by adding a byte-compiler
warning and by installing patches to fix the problems I encounter) because
it creates a backward incompatibility without much immediate benefit.


        Stefan