Re: Various Decisions

[kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM]

> 
> On condition handlers instead of NEXT-METHOD:

> Similarly, if it is the case (and I think it likely) that a programmer
> frequently wants to CALL-NEXT-METHOD when there might not be one, then he
> will likely want to write:

> 	(when (next-method) (call-next-method))

> or use a non-error-signaling version of CALL-NEXT-METHOD rather than
> program a condition handler.

I guess one could make an analogy with function calling. The programmer
can either test if the function is bound before calling:

  (if (fboundp 'foo)
    (apply foo arglist))

or go ahead and call it and take the exception if it's not:

  (catch-condition unbound-function &body (apply foo arglist))

So I guess it makes sense to have a way of checking if CALL-NEXT-METHOD
is "bound" within the method, in addition.

NEXT-METHOD-P, returning T or NIL, is fine with me.

		jak