[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (re)initialization revisited
- To: kempf@Sun.COM
- Subject: Re: (re)initialization revisited
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 19:14 PDT
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-2.text
- In-reply-to: <8804071913.AA01613@suntana.sun.com>
- Line-fold: no
The problem I have with your proposal is that as I see it, the four
concepts are really different concepts. I think it would be a mistake
to combine them.
Even though programmers don't call class-changed or
update-instance-structure, it is easy to imagine that a programmer would
want to do a different thing to an instance in these two cases. The
cases really are different and programs will want to be sensitive to
that difference.
There is of course a lot of similarity. The major thrust of the
proposal Danny and I mailed out was to point out the similarity in their
behavior and isolate it in a common subroutine. All the stuff about the
flags and stuff is secondary. I don't think any further collapsing of
these concepts will be a good idea though.
-------