[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
call-next-method with arguments
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: call-next-method with arguments
- From: kab@CHARON.MIT.EDU (Kim A. Barrett)
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 17:50:50 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Wed, 22 Aug 90 14:56 EDT <19900822185603.2.MOON@KENNETH-WILLIAMS.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
4. If call-next-method is called with arguments, it is supposed to signal
an error if the ordered set of methods applicable to the new arguments
differs from the ordered set of methods applicable to the original
arguments. However, the order of methods is not well defined ... . Is
compute-applicable-methods required to be consistent in its ordering of
such methods ..., or does call-next-method need to handle this situation
... It should be up to the implementation to choose to do this by imposing a
total ordering on the methods or by making call-next-method use something
other than EQUAL to do the checking.
I don't think the implementation can impose a total ordering on the methods,
since COMPUTE-APPLICABLE-METHODS is now a generic function (Issue
COMPUTE-APPLICABLE-METHODS, passed 6/90), so either it must be constrained to
return consistent results, or CALL-NEXT-METHOD must use something other than
EQUAL to match the two lists. I think the latter is probably the right way to
deal with this.
Other than that I think we agree on all points.