[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is a class object a valid method specializer?
- To: jonl%kuwait@lucid.com
- Subject: Re: Is a class object a valid method specializer?
- From: Gregor Kiczales <gregor@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 13:16:21 PST
- Cc: kab@chestnut.com, moon@brazil.cambridge.apple.com, kmp@symbolics.com, cer@franz.com, common-lisp-object-system@sail.stanford.edu
- Fake-sender: gregor@parc.xerox.com
- In-reply-to: Jon L White's message of Mon, 18 Mar 91 11:24:40 PST <9103181924.AA09031@kuwait>
- Line-fold: NO
- Sender: Gregor Kiczales <gregor@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 11:24:40 PST
From: Jon L White <jonl%kuwait@lucid.com>
My memory of the situation was that it was brough up on (maybe?) the
"mop" mailing list last fall, when the 11-Jul-90 MOP proposal was being
disucssed. Moon claimed it was probably an oversight, and several of
us agreed with him (I amongst those in agreement). However, at least one
person disagreed (I think Gregor?), but didn't make the disagreement
explicit other than "user interface" considerations.
My disagreement has to do with the difference between specializers and
specializer names. Clearly class (meta)objects are valid specializer
(meta)objects. I don't think they are valid as names though. But I
now remember giving in on this.