Re: initargs and change-class

[Gregor J. Kiczales <gregor@parc.xerox.com>]

   Date: Tue, 12 Jun 90 21:54 EDT
   From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
   Line-Fold: No

       Date: Mon, 11 Jun 90 22:55:13 PDT
       From: Gregor J. Kiczales <gregor@parc.xerox.com>

       It appears that we never made the change to have change-class and
       update-instance-for-redefined-class accept initialization arguments.
       We should do this, a number of people have asked for it, it is
       consistent, simple, and provides an elegant way to pass information
       about why the class is being changed.

   Of course you really mean update-instance-for-different-class, not
   update-instance-for-redefined-class, 

Right.

   I don't remember it ever being discussed.  
					      
					      At this point we need to go
   through a formal change process even if we claim we forgot, since the
   CLOS specification has been published in numerous places, translated
   into Japanese, engraved on the side of a space probe launched to Mars,
   etc.

Right.  I didn't mean, by the casual nature of my message to suggest
otherwise.  I meant more that we, as the original CLOS committee, should
recommened to X3J13 that this si a good change to make.  Very much in
the spirit of many of the minor corrections we made last week.