[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Keene comments on Chapter 1
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
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.
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.