Re: Various Decisions

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

    Date: 29 Sep 87 10:40 PDT
    From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>

	On NEXT-METHODS, I prefer NEXT-METHOD to avoid the potential
	confusion that RPLACD might cause for users.
    I don't care.  Remember that NEXT-METHODS was introduced first as an
    improvement over call-next-method-or-nil.  Hence its primary purpose was
    to allow a programmer to avoid using call-next-method when it would
    signal an error.  NEXT-METHOD satisfies that goal.  Question:  Is there
    anything else we want to make available at run time?  If we are only
    getting the next method, perhaps we ought to only have
    NEXT-METHOD-P
     which returns T or NIL; this might allow some optimizations of the
    combined code.

Okay, here's what I have written down about this topic now:

The function NEXT-METHODS was added in September.  It is scoped the same as
CALL-NEXT-METHOD, takes no arguments, and returns a list of method objects,
of which the first is the one that CALL-NEXT-METHOD calls.  The effect of
modifying the list is undefined.

  Moon and Gabriel like NEXT-METHOD better; it returns a method object or NIL.
  Kempf likes NEXT-METHOD better than NEXT-METHODS, but likes nothing even
  better, since CALL-NEXT-METHOD could signal a condition.
  Bobrow: NEXT-METHOD-P, returning no unnecessary information, is even better.
  Moon: I like that.