Re: short form of define-method-combination

[Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD%Jenner%ti-csl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>]

     Date: Wed, 19 Aug 87 13:20 EDT
     From: "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
     Subject: short form of define-method-combination
     
         Date: Tue, 18 Aug 87 19:06 EDT
         From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
     
         I am not enthusiastic about this proposal.  I have always liked having
         the qualifier in the defmethod form explicitly, because it enhances
         readability.
     
     Requiring the qualifier would satisfy my stated wants, provided that the
     qualifier wasn't optional (so there was only one way to write a primary
     method) and wasn't re-interned in the keyword package (so we aren't
     inventing symbols).
     
     However, I don't understand why you think the method-combination type of
     a generic function needs to be repeated in the defmethod, while the rest
     of the contract of the generic function does not need to be repeated.
     It seems to me that the command provided by the programming environment
     to remind one of the arguments expected, values returned, and documentation
     of the generic function can also remind one of the method-combination type.
     If you convince me that the method-combination type deserves special
     treatment, then I'll change my proposal to make the qualifier mandatory
     instead of prohibited.

The fact that we have two ways of defining primary methods for flavors
is a major source of confusion.  I got lots of questions about it.  I am
glad that David Proposes to rectify things.  I would be in favor of
omitting the qualifier, but if Dan objects to it, then requiring the
qualifier is OK too.  To me, the important thing is that the primary
methods have all the same syntax and that we don't end up with two
primary methods for one set of specializers.

Patrick.