Keene comments on Chapter 1

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

    Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 11:36 EDT
    From: Sonya E. Keene <skeene@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    In general, the spec seems to be coming together nicely.   I think it
    reads better than it used to, and the tone is quite consistent
    throughout.
    
I agree with this, but forgot to say so in my earlier comments.  I may
be "madly" reviewing the document, but so far I haven't found anything
to make me mad.  Chapter 1 seems to be in excellent shape and there
should be no problems finishing it.  I'm about to start reading Chapter 2.

    1-30, Standard Method Combination

    I think the standard method combination should have a name, such as
    "standard-method-combination".    That name should be able to be given
    to the :method-combination option to defgeneric, etc.   It should be
    noted as one of the Built-in Method Combination types.   Just because it
    is the default doesn't mean that it shouldn't have a name.    

I strongly agree.  The name should be just "standard" I think, rather
than the longer name, since the other m-c types have short names.
Method combination types aren't in the same namespace as anything else,
so they don't need to tack "-method-combination" onto the end of their
name to distinguish them.

    1-31

    We don't say here what happens if a generic function is called and 
    there is no applicable method at all.   Presumably an error is signaled.

Should say that it calls no-applicable-method, and maybe mention that
the default method for that signals an error.