Re: some questions on your chapter 2 comments

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

    Date: 19 Jan 88 09:37 PST
    From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>

	So how about it?  Shall we change CLOS so that re-evaluating a
	defgeneric removes methods that were previously defined by :method,
	but no longer appear in the new defgeneric form?  I think we should.

    I think that's a good idea.  Should we specify how defgeneric knows that a
    method was defined by :method.  We could use a predicate or we could make
    :method specified methods be a subclass of defgeneric-method.  This similar to
    how accessors methods are specified, and is what I reecommend.   

We decided at our last meeting that each class has a slot in which it
remembers a list of the defclass-defined methods.  I'm not imagining this,
am I?  I remember that idea winning out over giving each method a slot that
says how it was defined or having defclass-defined methods be a special
subclass.

I think defgeneric should handle its specially-defined methods in exactly
the same way that defclass handles its.