[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
scope of call-next-method
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: scope of call-next-method
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 14:10 EST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <871112105535.3.GREGOR@SPIFF.isl.parc.xerox.com>
- Line-fold: No
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 10:55 PST
I would still rather have call-next-method only be valid in the body of
the method and let users who want to do defaulting using it do the
defaulting by hand in the obvious way. I believe that the model that
defmethod wrap an flet around their body is a great deal simpler than
the model required to explain the behavior you propose.
I believe precisely the opposite, particularly since the way this is
explained to users surely does not involve writing out lambda
expressions and flets. That's only a way to explain it to implementors.
I think you're concentrating too much on the implementation and not
enough on the semantics. I propose that we leave call-next-method the
way it is and not change it.
I believe it's simpler to say that call-next-method works anywhere in a
method than to say it only works some places in a method, thus having to
say that if you use it in argument defaulting, you have to do the
argument defaulting a different way than you would ordinarily do it.
By the way, I tried the scoping you propose in Flavors, for the same
reason I think: I was concentrating too much on the implementation and
not enough on the semantics. My users forced me to change it to the
scoping I propose. These were outside users, not Symbolics people.