good evening;
my usual question: is this necessary in this form? i pose the question from the perspective that a change from a context free interpreter to a context-sensitive one is rather more drastic than just getting dynamic bindings right. two simple questions occurred immediately.
the change reads as if any link to a predecessor entails a recursive dependency? does this really mean that, if one file changes three levels down in a referenced module, the entire referencing module is to be forced? would there not be advantage to introducing a "recursively-depends- on" relation to the effect?
the asdf notation expresses two related, but independent constraints ambiguously, in that the only means it has is the appearance of a requirement in a list, despite that the actual constraints are operation order and, in addition, operation necessity.
is it true that both are always intended? is so, in what remains to "module" from any of the associations of "modularity", if in fact the respective constituents are not dependent? isn't this some manner of abstraction destruction?