[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Amendments requiring additional writing
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: Amendments requiring additional writing
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 1 Oct 87 09:53 PDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Thu, 1 Oct 87 11:50 EDT
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
DGB I would prefer to say:
The \CLOS\ guarantees that the user can change
the definition of an existing class that is a standard-class,
and cause its instances to be updated.
Whether redefining a class that is not a standard-class
causes existing instances to be updated is up to the implementor of
the particular metaclass. ``The \CLOS\ Meta-Object Protocol'' will
describe how to control this.
Moon I can't see any difference between these two paragraphs, except
that your suggested replacement is less direct, because the reader
has to turn elsewhere to find out what a standard-class is. As far
as I can tell there are no programs that would work under the first
paragraph but not under the second.
It is exactly this level of indirection I am encouraging because it will
not eventually be misleading. Later caveats about when defclass doesn't
produce standard-classes will not change the correctness of this
paragraph.