[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: change-class and class redefinition
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: change-class and class redefinition
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 22 Jan 87 17:00 PST
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Thu, 22 Jan 87 18:58 EST
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Then "specializable" means "this standard says you are supposed
to specialize this function as part of your normal programming",
which is not the same as the negation of "it is impossible to
specialize this function."
How about the term "tailorable function" for the sense of user is
expected to be able to tailor the system by providing a special method?
this one is callable. I agree with the rest of your examples, reprinted
here to try out the word tailorable.
make-method is callable, not tailorable, and not generic,
and get-method is callable, generic, and not tailorable at the
outer layer of the standard,
Dave, Did you see (and have a quick reaction) to the
I gave it a quick read but I'm not working on method
combination this month. It's too easy to use up all the time
polishing the last details of one issue to the total neglect of
other equally important issues.
I wanted the bit of: how much would you object if this were put in
instead of the writeup you worked on? (It is a start) If you object too
much, and if we are not going to argue it out before the draft goes out,
then we should put in both choices.