[racket] Redefinition of initial bindings/ Resessive genes in GP

I came across this "mutable-define" by Eli (3+ years back)...

;; http://paste.lisp.org/display/67203
;; this is a PLT version, translate as necessary

(define-syntax-rule (define-mutable name expr)
  (begin (define b (box expr))
         (define-syntax name
           (syntax-id-rules (set!)
             [(set! name new) (set-box! b new)]
             [(name . xs) ((unbox b) . xs)]
             [name (unbox b)]))))

;(define x 1)
;(define x 2)


...which seems beautifully concise for the job. The only problem is that
it only seems to work in the interactions window in drracket. Is there a
way to have it working inside a module? ... hopefully so that all the
tweaks would take place inside the very module, rather than "required"
from elsewhere (that would keep it an GP individual's property/"gene").

This is obviously what Danny is trying to explain me - "...language
variant of Racket where "define" acts like redefinition at the module
toplevel..." - but once again, I seem to be reaching out things before
understanding them.

br, jukka

>
>
>>> The offspring is basically a module source code. Due to GP's crossover
>>> and
>>> mutation functions, the offsprings source code can suggest function
>>> redefinitions in (atleast) two ways. For example
>>
>> You might consider a customized module language that's more amendable
>> to the kinds of code mutations you're considering.  That is, it's
>> possible to have a language variant of Racket where "define" acts like
>> redefinition at the module toplevel.  I have an example of something
>> like this in my Arctangent toy language (Refernce: see the definition
>> of 'def' in
>> https://github.com/dyoo/arctangent/blob/master/language.rkt)
>>
>
> Thanks Danny, I got lots of new ideas from this. A customized language is
> a great possibility. However, there's quite a lot of existing "creatures"
> which I'd rather keep valid and intact. What I'm now thinking, is either..
>
> A) "Inject" the kind of def/arctangent definition to a
> individual/population and see if it takes off.
>
> B) Allow individuals to use the new "def" function if they ever come
> across it (by crossover/mutation e.g.). This would be a part of the
> initial environment "require".
>
> C) Try to find a way to replace the original "define" definition with the
> "def". This would be the fastest way to deploy it, but I'd need to be
> careful not to break the earlier work.
>
> Propably a combination of A and B might be the best bet. The initial
> environment is expanded to cover a new function def1 (as a primitive, but
> not the source), and some individuals could be injected with def2
> including the source. Having the source included, exposes it to
> evolutionary changes. So, you would end up having three variants (define,
> def1 def2) available to choose from. If these were interchangeable,
> mutation could easily handle it. And new variants could evolve faster than
> spontaniously (who knows if there is something like that already in the
> population :)
>
> And I may end up creating a new #lang in the end, if necessary.
>
>
>>
>>
>> I don't think redefinition should be the default, given that standard
>> Racket's approach is to generally make mutation an explicitly
>> represented feature.  That is, if I want to see that something stays
>> the same, I grep for 'set!' in my code, and if I don't see it, I can
>> assume that I don't mutate my toplevel.
>>
>
> Makes sense, I agree. But if there was a commandline option like
>
> $ racket -allow-redefinitions ...
>
> available, that would be great. Or if you could somehow enable it by code.
>
>
> br, jukka
>
>
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>