[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Progress is Our Most Important Problem -- Method Combination
- To: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Progress is Our Most Important Problem -- Method Combination
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 29 Jan 87 15:59 PST
- Cc: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>'s message of 28 Jan 87 19:32 PST
As for all this fuss about method combination,
I have to ask, what do you suppose will be the ratio of
define-method-combinations to defmethods in Common Lisp code?
Because actual define-method-combination forms are so rare, but
interaction with method combination is so common, I think the most
important thing about method combination is the abstraction. People
need to be able to understand how method combination works a lot more
often than they need to be able to type a define-method-combination. I
think that a lot of progress has been made in improving the abstraction,
and I think thats real good.
I believe that both define-method-combination proposals on the table are
terribly over-engineered. They have convenience mechanisms and bells
and whistles that are not appropriate for such a rarely used form.
Including two different versions of define-method-combination is an
excellent example of this kind of over-engineering.
Because of these beliefs, I prefer Danny's proposal to Moon's just
because it is simpler.