[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: some questions on your chapter 2 comments
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: some questions on your chapter 2 comments
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 19 Jan 88 09:37 PST
- Cc: LGD@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Tue, 19 Jan 88 11:45 EST
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
So how about it? Shall we change CLOS so that re-evaluating a
defgeneric removes methods that were previously defined by :method,
but no longer appear in the new defgeneric form? I think we should.
I think that's a good idea. Should we specify how defgeneric knows that a
method was defined by :method. We could use a predicate or we could make
:method specified methods be a subclass of defgeneric-method. This similar to
how accessors methods are specified, and is what I reecommend.