[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Stan's Comments
- From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Date: 05 Feb 87 1312 PST
Stan has some good comments:
``"The definition of the class specifies the structure of instances of the
class. The slots define the structure of the instance."
This seems contradictory to me. Perhaps the point is that the class
specifies the slots, and the slots define the structure instances.''
The two sentences on which he comments are not contradictory, only poorly
written. The language construct that serves to define the class
*specifies* the structure. The slots are the structure that is specified -
that is, they *define* it. The distinction is between the words `specify'
and `define,' the first being in a linguistic category the second being in
an operational category.
He's right it's bad wording because his quick reading did not result in
Stan mentions that the ``lattice'' isn't. I suppose we thought that the
rules for well-defined class structures would prevent situations like the
one he mentions, but they don't. I suppose I had hoped for an upper
semi-lattice, but it isn't in the cards. DAG it will probably be.
All the wording regarding orderings and their generators have long since been
made consistent. Though his comments are valuable, we generally have not
distributed the document of the date he mentions, but I guess a public file
is a public file.