[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Category Errors
- From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Date: 24 Jul 87 1459 PDT
``We have NOT laid out the range of legal arguments for generic functions.''
My comment was:
``We've carefully laid out, in most cases, the range of legal arguments to
functions and generic functions in CLOS....''
I guess I shouldn't rely on subtle wording to get across a subtle point.
Here is a generic function ``in CLOS'':
Add-method generic-function method
And here is how we have ``carefully laid out ... the range of legal
arguments'' to it:
The generic-function argument is a generic function
The method argument is a method object. The
lambda-list of the method function must be
congruent with the lambda-lists of any other
methods associated with the generic function and
with the lambda-list of the generic function.
(page 2-5, FUNCTIONS)
The thing in CLOS that is already the same sort of ``blemish'' as this
category error is discrimination on individuals. Blemish, beauty mark:
At least we can agree that in both cases an observer is justified in
thinking ``what's that thing?''