Re: Method Combination Objects

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

    Date: Wed, 27 Jan 88 13:57:19 PST
    From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM

    > Append to the paragraph:
    >   "A method combination instance is a meta-object that encapsulates
    >   the method combination type and options specified by the
			       ^^^^
    >   {\bf :method-combination} option to forms that specify generic
    >   function options."

    I don't think you mean "type" in the sense of Common Lisp type here,
    do you? Isn't "role" the correct technical term?

I mean "type", but not in the sense of Common Lisp type.  "Type" is
the word other parts of the document use, e.g. 1-5 last paragraph,
1-36 heading near bottom of page, 2-28 fourth bullet.  I'm not enamored
of the term, since it's easy to confuse with the formal notion of type,
but it's the term that the document uses.

Role is certainly not the correct term; at least, the way we've been using
it, it is an attribute of a method that is defined by a method-combination
[type]; it's not a synonym for a method-combination [type].

    > (describe-method-concisely generic-function method method-combination)

    Why is this any different from DESCRIBE? Presumably, a DESCRIBE method
    could give the same information for a method object.

DESCRIBE would talk all about the method object at length, whereas
describe-method-concisely prints just one or two words that crisply
identify this method's role.  In fact, do you think
describe-method-role-concisely would be a better name?