[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
which functions should be generic?
- To: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: which functions should be generic?
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 18:43 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <880624-122008-5902@Xerox>
- Line-fold: No
Date: 24 Jun 88 12:19 PDT
Mr. Ida asks (relative to COERCE-INCOMPLETE):
"Will Coerce function be a (standard) generic function ?"
It's difficult to implement COERCE's dispatch in terms of generic
function dispatch since equivalence of type specifiers is not done
in an object-oriented way. There is no way to write a method that
is applicable both for (coerce '(#\a) 'string) and for
(coerce '(#\a) '(vector string-char)), even though both of those
forms mean the same thing.
I'd like to generalize this: Now that CLOS is part of the standard, which
functions in CL should be generic?
I think this is the wrong mailing list to discuss changes that X3J13, or
anyone else, might want to make to the language in order to take advantage