[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: JonL@LUCID.COM
- Subject: Issue EQUAL-STRUCTURE
- From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Date: Sat 4 Mar 89 17:39:06-PST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, iim@ECLA.USC.EDU
> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 20:25:00 PST
> From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> But the issue here is whether the fix is:
> (1) to drastically rip up the current default behaviour, or
> (2) to provide mechanisms that allow users to modify behaviour
> [and presumably, he gets the "default" if he doesn't do so].
> I've been favoring (2) over (1).
You're making me sound like an ogre. I certainly favor allowing users to
modify behaviour. What we disagree about is what the default behaviour should
be. I firmly believe that specifying component-wise processing as the default
for any protocol applicable to user defined classes is wrong. Without an
understanding of a class there is no way to know which features of an instance
are 'interesting' and which are merely artifacts of the implementation, or even
how to find the interesting features (they may not be stored as elements in the
I don't plan on saying anything further on this issue. I think we've both
presented our arguments, and its now beginning to sound like theological
debate. If you want us to modify/retract the decision made in Hawaii, generate
a cleanup issue and we can all vote on it.