[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New CLISP version
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: New CLISP version
- From: David.Loewenstern@att.com (David Loewenstern, Bell Labs, 201-386-6516)
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 93 10:53:52 EDT
- In-reply-to: Bruno Haible's message of Tue, 24 Aug 93 15:21:18 +0200 <9308241320.AA07145@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Original-from: att.com!David.Loewenstern (David Loewenstern, Bell Labs, 201-386-6516)
- Original-to: ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de!clisp-list
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org (David Loewenstern)
... On Tue, 24 Aug 93 15:21:18 +0200, email@example.com (Bruno Haible) said:
} What is common practice in CLOS programs? Are methods for INITIALIZE-INSTANCE
} frequent or not? What about methods for SHARED-INITIALIZE ?
I've written methods for both INITIALIZE-INSTANCE and
SHARED-INITIALIZE, to derive default slot values from other slot
values. I haven't had a situation in which I couldn't have easily
switched from INITIALIZE-INSTANCE to SHARED-INITIALIZE or vice versa.
Perhaps you could make the compliant version standard, and provide
the non-compliant .fas file for people who needed the speed?
(Or you could get really fancy and add a non-compliant-class
These opinions are shareware. If you like the product,
please send your $0.02 to
<firstname.lastname@example.org || David.Loewenstern@att.com>