[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 89 14:36 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 89 10:56 PDT
It would be nice to have a one or two page list of all the changes that
have been made to CLOS since we voted 88-002R.
I believe changes like this are
supposed to be flagged in the draft of the Common Lisp specification, so
a list could be constructed that way. The one or two that I did were
mailed to this mailing list.
Here is a summary of the changes that I made while reviewing some of the
CLOS function pages (other than strictly grammatical type improvements).
I might have made some changes while reviewing the Types section (2.2)
but it's too long ago to remember. Those would have been only changes
to make it reflect cleanup issues that had been passed.
Clarify that the arguments to CALL-METHOD are not evaluated.
If the invocation of call-method is lexically inside of a make-method,
the arguments are those that were supplied to that method. Otherwise
the arguments are those that were supplied to the generic function.
Clarify where MAKE-METHOD can be used.
The form used with make-method is evaluated in the null lexical
environment augmented with a local macro definition for call-method and
with bindings named by symbols not accessible from the common-lisp-user
The second argument to CALL-METHOD is now optional.
Changed the value returned by DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION from a method
combination object [which doesn't make any sense] to the name argument.
The effective method is evaluated in the null lexical environment
augmented with a local macro definition for call-method and with
bindings named by symbols not accessible from the common-lisp-user
Rewrote the description of the :ARGUMENTS option to
DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION to clarify how mismatch between these
arguments and the generic function's arguments is handled, and
to forbid modifying the arguments.