[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Class redefinition and class-changed.
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Class redefinition and class-changed.
- From: Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD%Jenner%ti-csl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 07:59:16 CDT
- In-reply-to: Msg of Wed, 15 Jul 87 10:58:31 -0700 from firstname.lastname@example.org
> GET-OBSOLETE-VERSION class
> returns the preceding obsolete version of this class, or NIL if none.
> This allows users to define methods at any time on the obsolete class.
> Obsolete classes themselves may also have an obsolete-version. Obsolete
> classes also respond to
Is this meant to imply that there can be multiple versions of classes
floating about? If so, then perhaps class versioning needs to be
investigated more closely.
I am not sure I agree with the term VERSION. An obsolete class object
is not a version of the class because it is here just to support the
class-changed protocol. It is not meant to have permanent instances.
Surrogate might be more appropriate. In the sense there can only be
instances of "current class" outside of the execution of CLASS-CHANGED,
I don't think we need to worry about class versioning.