[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: DUSSUD%Jenner%ti-csl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
- Subject: Re: ---
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 27 Jan 87 13:05 PST
- Cc: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM, common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: DUSSUD%Jenner%ti-csl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET's message of 27 Jan 87 11:33:22
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
A generic-function can have only one method-combination
type -- parametrized or not.
Well that's what is in the standard. I consider this assumption
being a simplification of a more general model. I understand that
we don't want to put the general model in the standard (Size,
complexity.....) but we can't lock the standard in a mode where
only the simplistic model can be supported without
To get other kinds of extensions, one uses the meta-object protocol,
which in this case consists of defining your own method on
compute-effective-method. Since this is called by the system when
generic function is called with a set of arguments, the only thing it
can depend on is information from the generic function (and of course
the argument types). 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.
I take this message as support for including this version of
define-method-combination as the one in the specification. I
agree with Gabriel that this committee should really amke up its
You're jumping to conclusion. Convergence means that each
additional proposal has negligible added value.
I really meant this as a prod to get us to think about this some more.
We need to be talking about it.
- Re: ---
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>