[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: ---
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 27 Jan 87 18:23 PST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Tue, 27 Jan 87 20:49 EST
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
The issue is whether that information is extracted by
the system and made an argument of the method, or extracted in
the method. I have suggested that extracting it in the method
is the general way to do it.
That is not really what you have suggested. You suggested
extracting it in the define-method-combination.
I suggest doing it in both. That is, any information other than the
combination-type (e.g. standard , and) which selects a method is
extracted from the generic function.
Your suggestion would mean that define-method-combination forms
would not be portable between systems that have only one method
combination type per generic-function and systems that are more
general. What I think Patrick is suggesting is that the extension
to allow more general selection of a method-combination type should
be orthogonal to the method-combination types themselves.
I don't understand how a generic function can have more than one
method-combination type. I also don't understand your last sentence at
- Re: ---
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>