[no subject]

[Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>]

Glossary

KMP writes:

`` - I feel funny about the use of the word ``contains'' in ``generic
function.'' ''

The reason to use it is that some people have the idea that a
generic function is really just a name and that there are
a set of methods that are associated with that name. A test of this
misconception is to see how they react when you say you want to
save the old definition of a generic function G by grabbing #'G,
dork around with a new definition of G, and then restore the old one.

That is, the word ``contain'' is intended to make you think that when
you pick up a generic function object, the methods ``come along too.''

The word ``contain'' probably implies slightly too much about implementation,
but a generic function acts as if the methods and the method combination were
part of it. 

KMP, would you feel that some phrasing that said that a generic function
was simply a function and could be used exactly the same way would preclude
people from thinking generic functions were amorphous?

Also, note that the current glossary definition is pretty much excerpted from
88-002R.

			-rpg-