Re: More feedback from Symbolics reviewers

[Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>]

    In the current version of the document, CALL-NEXT-METHOD is
    documented as a macro.  That was a mistake; it should be a
    function.  The document should be updated.  We'll do it next time
    we get the lock on the document, unless someone else does it first,
    which would be perfectly okay with me.

    The Remarks field of CALL-NEXT-METHOD should say that it can
    only be called from the lexical scope of the body of a DEFMETHOD or
    DEFMETHOD-SETF. The current documentation sort of implies this but
    doesn't say it explicitly. In most implementations CALL-NEXT-METHOD
    will be defined with a FLET  that DEFMETHOD wraps around its body,
    rather than being a global function, and maybe the Remarks field
    should mention this.
We need a proposal for the extension for call-next-method for changed
arguments.  What is the problem with providing call-next-method with an
&rest argument, and if it is non-null, then argument checking is done on
those elements of the argument-list that have been used in the
discriminator-code.  Does this argue for a macro implementation to allow
altrnative expansions in the case where arguments are provided.
   


  danny