[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues for the CLOS committee to start focussing on
- To: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Issues for the CLOS committee to start focussing on
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 11 Jan 87 22:22 PST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>'s message of 11 Jan 87 12:07 PST
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Is the following used consistently?
"An instance q is of type X if (CLASS q) is X or a subclass of X; that
is X is at or above the (CLASS q)" Is "type" the right word here?
Seems right to me, given the joining of the type and class spaces.
The name for standard method combination in the concepts document, and
elsewhere whould be "standard" not daemon.
My description requires that we make the class DAG a lattice,
which means a bottom as well as a top element. We haven't decided
this, but I don't think it's a big deal to do it.
The only issue here is making it clear and getting the right name for
the bottom. From the point of view of agreeing with the type system,
NIL is the right name for the bottom, since NIL is a defined Common Lisp
type. But what happens when people evaluate (CLASS-NAMED NIL). Do they
get a real class? Or should (CLASS-NAMED NIL) signal an error?
If we have unnamed classes, then
(NEQ (CLASS-NAMED (CLASS-NAME <unnamed-class>)) <unnamed-class>)
which is OK with me.