Hole

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1987  16:40 EDT
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    Maybe this suggests that it is time to bite the bullet and let CLOS
    methods discriminate on non-required args, keyword or otherwise.  The
    last time I heard this discussed, it was more a matter of "we don't want
    to think about how to extend the priority rules right now" than "we
    can't discriminate on optional args for the following fundamental
    reason".  Has that changed?

If I remember (I haven't consulted the archives), it wasn't a case of
"we don't want to think about it".  I think we came up with nine
different equally plausible extensions to provide for that case, and
couldn't find any compelling reason to choose one over the others.  I
think it would be better for the CLOS committee to concentrate on
finishing what we have tackled so far, and avoid piling on even more
ambitions.  These things can be added later.