[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(long) CLOS Declaration Proposal Text
- To: Jim Kempf <kempf%hplabsc@hplabs.HP.COM>
- Subject: (long) CLOS Declaration Proposal Text
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 15:29 EDT
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <8704162339.AA22952@hplabsc>
This is a good beginning. Not being a fan of machines that require
declarations, I'm going to keep a low profile in this discussion, but
I do have a couple of comments/criticisms for you.
5) If method combination is prohibited for a certain method,
any overhead which is needed to support method combination
in the general case could be avoided.
I agree that this is a non-issue.
(CLASS FOO X)
I think (EXACT-CLASS FOO X) has a lot less potential for confusion.
a user may want to restrict a particular name to be a generic function
I don't see why. I suggest leaving this out unless there is a good
reason for it (which should be articulated).
When a user creates a subclass of a "staticized" class, rather than
changing the semantics in some unclear way, I suggest signalling an
error if there is a conflict between the semantics frozen into the
superclass and the semantics that would exist if the superclass had not
been "staticized". The design principle here is that adding a
"staticize" declaration to a working program shouldn't change what it
does, only how fast it does it.
The name MAKE-STATIC isn't the best. To me, it connotes a function that
returns an object that I can hand to the WRITE-SOUND function and get an
ugly noise from the speaker in my console. FREEZE-CLASS would be better.