[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Terminology: default value form
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: Terminology: default value form
- From: Gregor Kiczales <Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 5 Jan 87 13:14 PST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Wed, 31 Dec 86 00:50 EST
- Sender: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
"initial value form" rather than "default value form" is fine,
although I don't see why users would expect this system to behave
like LOOPS. It doesn't seem to have much resemblance to LOOPS.
One could argue that the word "default" here is justified because
this form only provides the initial value if another initial value
is not specified by the caller of MAKE-INSTANCE. Thus it is the
DEFAULT initial value form.
Note that in the simplified initialization protocol I sent out, they are
INITIAL value forms. That is because they are always evaluated by
make-instance, and the slots are always set to their values.
Afterwards, the initialize generic-function is called on the instance
and the "init-plist".
The method on initialize for OBJECT, fills in slot values from the
init-plist, but some classes may override that method so they will not
get this behavior.