[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


    Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 13:47:14 CDT
    From: Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD@Jenner.csc.ti.com>

	 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 14:52 EDT
	 From: "David A. Moon" <Moon@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>
	 Subject: add-named-xxx
	     Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 11:20 PDT
	     From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
	 After thinking about the above three paragraphs a bit, I think this is
	 wrong modularity, by your own arguments.  I think the caller of
	 add-named-method should -always- call ensure-generic-function himself.
	 That is, defmethod really consists of two parts, defining the generic
	 function if not already defined, and defining/replacing the method.
	 These two parts should not be combined in the macro expansion.  Thus
	 the arguments to add-named-method should be a prototype method (the
	 usual kludge for class-discriminating methods) and some keyword arguments
	 that include a generic function object, qualifiers, specializers, the
	 method function, and some others that are optional.

    I agree with this proposal.  At the meeting I proposed that the first argument
    be the generic function object, but I think now that this is better.  It
    provides the right modularity between the class of the generic function and the
    class of the method. 

I also like this.  We will put something like it in the next draft.