Re: indefinite extent of call-next-method

[kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM]

> It is important for you to understand that my arguments about hidden state
> follow from a decision about a principle - the black-box nature of the
> execution of generic functions. They do not follow from imagining an
> implementation and then reasoning about it. If you do not believe in the
> black-box nature of the execution of generic functions, you will construct
> arguments, semantics, and implementations that eliminate the hidden state.
> If I were to accept the clear-box nature of generic function execution, I
> would also explain the semantics with a nest of closures.

This also explains what I was trying to get at, but Dick seems to have 
expressed it more clearly. We seem to have a disagreement as to the fundamental
semantics. I'm willing to say "Tio" if you feel strongly about it, and 
considering Masinter's comment about discouraging optional extensions, go
with indefinite.

		jak