[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on comments on Chapter 1
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 14:15:21 PDT
1-3 sixth paragraph: "ordered set" should be "list" in two places,
to avoid implying that duplicates are eliminated from the "set" of
parameter specializers or the "set" of qualifiers.
1-23 first paragraph under Introduction to Methods: same comment.
I would rather that the word used here was "sequence" instead of "list",
just because "sequence" is a bit less evocative of a particular Lisp
Good idea. I like "ordered sequence" here.
Perhaps I'm just missing something, but what's the use of multiple
defclass' philosophy appears to be to allow all options and slot options
to appear multiple times unless repetition has to be forbidden because
it would be meaningless. I think multiple :default-initargs options
just act like they were concatenated.
So, to test my understanding, "(EQL -form-)" is a parameter specializer
name and "(EQL -object-)" is the resulting parameter specializer, where
-object- is the result of evaluating -form-. Is this right?
Right. At Dick's request I mailed him a rewrite of this portion of this
section that I think should clarify everything better than my comment.
Moon says: ....
I agree with this. I was surprised when I saw that LIST was more
specific than SYMBOL.
[name of] Standard Method Combination
Rather than add one more symbol in the LISP package that has no
intrinsic meaning (e.g., no value), I would like to see this named
:STANDARD. The only reason the various other built-in m-c types aren't
named with keywords is to make their association with the Lisp operators
I don't understand what you mean by "intrinsic meaning". Binding to
a method-combination type is as intrinsic as binding to a value in my book.
However, I have no objection to using a keyword as the name, other than
that we'll have to change the second sentence under Arguments on page 2-29