[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Constructors

To: dussud%jenner.csc.ti.com@csnet-relay.ARPA
Subject: Re: Constructors
From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 10:14:00 MDT
Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 12 Oct 87 14:09:38 -0500. <2770052978-7072022@Jenner>

> In conclusion since I don't think the option is hard to understand or to
> explain and since any serious implementation will have to do something
> like that (at the sub-meta level at least), I think it is a good thing
> to standardize.

I pretty much agree with Danny and Gregor on this, and oppose adding
constructors. In addition, it is another DEFCLASS option, further
complicating the class creation language. 

		jak

References:
- Re: Constructors
  - From: Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD@Jenner.csc.ti.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Status (and TRACE-EXECUTION spec)
Next by Date: Re: fixing our problems with setf
Previous by thread: Re: Constructors
Next by thread: Constructors
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread