[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


     Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 14:52 EDT
     From: "David A. Moon" <Moon@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>
     Subject: add-named-xxx
         Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 11:20 PDT
         From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
     After thinking about the above three paragraphs a bit, I think this is
     wrong modularity, by your own arguments.  I think the caller of
     add-named-method should -always- call ensure-generic-function himself.
     That is, defmethod really consists of two parts, defining the generic
     function if not already defined, and defining/replacing the method.
     These two parts should not be combined in the macro expansion.  Thus
     the arguments to add-named-method should be a prototype method (the
     usual kludge for class-discriminating methods) and some keyword arguments
     that include a generic function object, qualifiers, specializers, the
     method function, and some others that are optional.

I agree with this proposal.  At the meeting I proposed that the first argument
be the generic function object, but I think now that this is better.  It
provides the right modularity between the class of the generic function and the
class of the method.