[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: a metaobject extension
- To: Gregor Kiczales <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: FYI: a metaobject extension
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 15:26 EDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@mcc.com
- In-reply-to: <9008011744.AA04880@roo.parc.xerox.com>
- Line-fold: No
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 10:44:03 PDT
From: Gregor Kiczales <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 13:01 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
We seem to have gotten out of synch somehow. Nothing in your message
has anything at all to do with what I thought we were talking about,
which is allowing macros to expand into
(defmethod gf ((x #<class c>) y z) body...)
Hmm, I think we are still in sync. Specifically, do you imagine
allowing macros to expand that way as part of file compiling?
Yes. I don't just imagine it, I do it.
How could that work?
The class has to have an applicable MAKE-LOAD-FORM method, obviously, so that
the class can be made available as a parameter specializer name at load time.
This is really no different from using a symbol as a parameter specializer
name, we're just using a class in place of a class-name.
Does it help clarify things if I tell you that implementing this feature in
PCL required adding this one-line change to parse-specializers?
((typep spec 'class) spec)