Re: Method Combination Objects

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

    Date: 13 Jan 88 10:36 PST
    From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>

    I have no problem at all with the Method Combination Object Layer.  It seems
    just right.

    Here is an alternative proposal for a "naming" layer.

    (method-combination-instance g-fn name :options options)

    is how a method combination name and options are converted into an object.

This looks good to me except for two fairly minor points.  One is that
I think the options should be a required argument rather than a keyword
argument.  There is no reason ever to omit this.  Secondly, I'm not
sure about the name method-combination-instance; it doesn't seem consistent
with the rest of chapter 3.  I don't know if you've changed the naming
conventions since the last version I saw, but in that version the
consistent name would be something like expand-method-combination.
Personally I prefer parse-xxx for names of functions that convert
specifications into objects, rather than expand-xxx.

Let me know what name is consistent with what you're doing and I'll mail
out a modified proposal when I get a chance.