[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Is a class object a valid method specializer?
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Is a class object a valid method specializer?
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:38:11 PST
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Mon, 18 Mar 1991 14:28-0500 <19910318192810.6.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: Btw, without the ability to name a class object here, the entire
defmethod layer is not accessible to programs that deal with anonymous
classes. I regard this as more than `mere user interface' since it
may force some programmers to access an entire new level of substrate
which they might otherwise never have any need to know or use.
Without recalling specifically who invoked the "user interface"
argument, I recall the thread of it being that the MOP was supposed
to be the "functional interface" whereas DEFMETHOD was not.
Counter to that argument was my own that points out how CLOS opens the
spectre of class objects being _type-specifiers_ just as much as class
names are. Thus, a "parameter specializer name", which is used as a
type-restriction in a DEFMETHOD form (EQL excluded for the moment),
should logically include the class object too, since both the class
name and the class object specify the same data type.
Just for the record, I've verified that Moon's comment about "current
practice" applies to Lucid's 4.0 relase.
I hope we don't have to debate this publicly; can't we just agree
amongst ourselves not to bring it up at Mountain View this week?
-- JonL --