[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Making (CLASS-OF <class>) be EQ to <class>
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Making (CLASS-OF <class>) be EQ to <class>
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:14:21 PDT
- Cc: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, common-lisp-object-system@MCC.COM
- In-reply-to: Gregor Kiczales's message of Tue, 25 Sep 1990 16:37:14 PDT <90Sep25.email@example.com>
re: (METHOD CHANGE-CLASS (STANDARD-OBJECT)) ;sure
(METHOD SHARED-INITIALIZE :AFTER (STANDARD-CLASS)) ;maybe?
The short answer is that it isn't possible for a user to do either of
the method definitions you list.
Right. What I was suggesting is that these prohibitions be spelled out in
the same place in the spec that spells out the LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION
restrictions. [By the bye, my comments ";sure" and ";mabye" above are to
imply that I'm sure this one is restricted, and that maybe the other one
ought to be too.]
re: 2. If there are methods defined on function FOO at classes respectively
<C1, C2 ...>,then how can one temporary override the effective method
at that point, and cause it to defer to the next most specific one?
. . .
The way to do this is to change either the method combination, or the
generic function class.
Yea, that's what I was afraid of. Since the purpose in doing it was just
to suppress the MAKE-INSTANCES-OBSOLETE call so that Kim's circular linkup
could be made, then some lower-level kludge would be, I guess, just as
acceptable. Like the :AROUND method that just "in-lines" the effective
method that it wanted to "delegate" to.
Incidentally, this sort of request could also be viewed as supporting the
need for COMPUTE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD, even though there are no new metaclasses
or generic-function-classes or method-combinations.
-- JonL --