[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Continuing comments on Draft 11
- To: email@example.com, Cyphers@JASPER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: Continuing comments on Draft 11
- From: Scott Cyphers <Cyphers@JASPER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 1990 13:32:00 PST
- Cc: jonl@lucid.COM, mop@arisia.Xerox.COM
- In-reply-to: <90Nov2.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 1990 16:11 EST
From: Gregor Kiczales <Gregor@parc.xerox.COM>
If the user wanted to define a new class of method that added a lexical
function binding FOO around the body they would define a method like:
(defmethod make-method-lambda ((gf standard-generic-function)
`(,(car lambda) ,(cadr lambda)
`(flet ((foo ..)) ,(cddr lambda)))
This would work (if you fixed the bug) just as well if you didn't say
that make-method-lambda returned a function which took two arguments, so
I don't see why you should be saying it.
METHOD-FUNCTION, on a method, would return a function of two arguments
(a list of args and a list of next methods). This is important to have
for things like user-built steppers. The implementation-model would be
that impls would call METHOD-FUNCTION, but, as usual, they don't have to
call it if they know what they are going to get. That is, there are no
relevant meta-level incursions.
If a function FUNCALL-METHOD-LAMBDA took arguments of a
MAKE-METHOD-LAMBDA's first and second values, a list of next methods, a
boolean of whether or not next methods were allowed, and the arguments
to the function, I could write such a FUNCALL-METHOD-LAMBDA function.
Is that good enough for a stepper?