Re: ---

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 27 Jan 87 18:23 PST
    From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>

	    The issue is whether that information is extracted by
	    the system and made an argument of the method, or extracted in
	    the method.  I have suggested that extracting it in the method
	    is the general way to do it.

	That is not really what you have suggested.  You suggested
	extracting it in the define-method-combination.

    I suggest doing it in both.  That is, any information other than the
    combination-type (e.g. standard , and) which selects a method is
    extracted from the generic function.

	Your suggestion would mean that define-method-combination forms
	would not be portable between systems that have only one method
	combination type per generic-function and systems that are more
	general.  What I think Patrick is suggesting is that the extension
	to allow more general selection of a method-combination type should
	be orthogonal to the method-combination types themselves.

    I don't understand how a generic function can have more than one
    method-combination type.  

It would be an upward-compatible extension to the standard.  One way to do
it was proposed by Patrick in his message of 31 October.  Another way, which
unfortunately only works for classical methods, exists in Flavors now.

    I also don't understand your last sentence at all.

I hope Patrick's latest message clarified it.  I was guessing at his
suggestion but he said it himself, about modularity and keeping the
various operations as independent as possible.