CLIM mail archive

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

Re: clos object wierdness ..



In message <9402150852.AA24012@iml.fhg.de>  writes:
>     Essentially, I'm doing the following:
>     
>     (defclass a () ())
>     (defclass b () ())
>     (defclass c () ())
>     
>     (defclass d (a b c) ())
>     (define-presentation-type d (foo))
> 
> As far as I understood this is not a correct p-type definition
> in CLIM. presentation type d MUST :inherit-from (a b c), as the
> presentation-type hierarchy must always "parallel" the clos class-
> hierarchy.
>     

If I understand it right, you are wrong here: If you do not
define p-types *explicitly*, the p-types automatically parallel
the CLOS hierarchie.
You should define p-types explicitly in order to define
a *different* hierarchy, so this must be peerfectly legal.

In the rare case, that you want to define a p-type explicitly,
but of the default (CLOS) hierarchy, you have to supply
the full supertype list for the :inherit-from keyword.

I find it much easier to *not* define p-types explicitly.



Main Index | Thread Index