CLOS Response

[Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 19 Feb 87  1323 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

    Third, they thought that method combination was complex. Because we all
    seem to agree that method combination is important, this probably
    indicates a different presentation methodology or a different organization
    to the system is desirable. One suggestion is to present CLOS so that it
    looks as much like CommonLoops as possible at first glance and to then
    bring in method combination.  That is, maybe a good idea is to break up
    the current first chapter into two chapters where the first chapter
    defines only unqualified methods along with the behavior of methods under
    CALL-NEXT-METHOD. The second chapter could show what happens when methods
    are qualified using standard method combination.

This suggestion doesn't seem very consistent with your earlier (months
ago) statements about the philosophy of this document.  Earlier, you
pointed out that we are writing a specification, mainly intended for
implementors and language experts, with the goal of making sure that
each implementation of CLOS will be compatible with each other, to
assure portability.  You even criticised some of the early draft text
because it was too pedagogical.  I think you convinced all of us that
you were right, that our priorities should be on specificity and
exactness, rather than on providing a friendly, teaching approach, for
purposes of this document.  I'm sure we all agree that at least one
friendly, pedagogical explanation of CLOS can and will appear in the
future (probably many), after CLOS is defined and accepted, but the
present document isn't it.