[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: TYPE-OF-UNDERCONSTRAINED (Version 1)
- To: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: TYPE-OF-UNDERCONSTRAINED (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 88 06:24 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <881201-162703-5359@Xerox>
Can you clarify what a "recognized subtype" is? Is it something that
CLtL readers would recognize (ie, a term introduced in CLtL) or is
something that SUBTYPEP would recognize (ie, spanning implementation-specific
Is it really true that CLOS already presumes that TYPE-OF is in good order?
I looked quickly at the spec and it seems to define CLASS-OF in terms of
TYPE-OF. If that quick impression is correct, then you should really mention
this fact either in the problem description or the rationale to offer it the
prominence its due since if this issue is not resolved, the portability of
all methods on built-in classes will have questionable value.
On the other hand, if CLOS also offers information about how CLASS-OF
can get its info without going through TYPE-OF, then some verbiage belongs
in the Proposal part saying that in all cases where CLASS-OF is well-defined
and would return a class which has a proper name, then TYPE-OF should return
that proper name -- no?
I'm a bit tired at this point, so if I'm not completely coherent on these
issues, I apologize. But since I'm going away on vacation soon, I wanted to
get my thoughts onto the books.
My impression is that the wording of this proposal might need a little
tightening here and there but that the general idea is right.