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

Re: Minor things noticed while proofreading documents

    slot-spec syntax: did (slot-name initform) as a convenient
    abbreviation for (slot-name :initform initform) go away
    accidentally, or did we really decide to get rid of it?  I don't
    remember discussing this.
I thought this was still supposed to be there, but I don't care.

    :accessor-prefix, :reader-prefix: the document says that the
    argument to these can be a string, a symbol, or nil.  My memory is
    that we got rid of the string and nil cases.  True or false?

We certainly agreed to flush strings. We need to be able to say that the
slot-names themselves are used for the accessors.  If (:accessor-prefix)
is used for that, we do not need NIL.  I vote for (:accessor-prefix) as
the right way to say use the slot-names.

    The documentation for get-method says that the specializers
    argument is a list of parameter specializers.  I proposed an alist
    format instead, to allow extensibility to specializing on keyword
    arguments in the future. I thought it was accepted.  Was it
    rejected, or did the document just not get updated yet?  This
    applies to make-method also.
I thought we said one could extend the parameter specializers list by
putting in &key and using an alist for those specializers later, and
this way the user does not have to specify argument names.

    Should make-generic-function and make-method be flushed in
    favor of documenting particular sets of arguments to make-instance
    that perform those functions?

I favor this.  slot-names in the standard meta-objects should be used.