[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Various Decisions
- To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Various Decisions
- From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 14:26:58 MST
- Cc: Common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of 29 Sep 87 15:29:00 -0700.
> On condition handlers instead of NEXT-METHOD:
> Similarly, if it is the case (and I think it likely) that a programmer
> frequently wants to CALL-NEXT-METHOD when there might not be one, then he
> will likely want to write:
> (when (next-method) (call-next-method))
> or use a non-error-signaling version of CALL-NEXT-METHOD rather than
> program a condition handler.
I guess one could make an analogy with function calling. The programmer
can either test if the function is bound before calling:
(if (fboundp 'foo)
(apply foo arglist))
or go ahead and call it and take the exception if it's not:
(catch-condition unbound-function &body (apply foo arglist))
So I guess it makes sense to have a way of checking if CALL-NEXT-METHOD
is "bound" within the method, in addition.
NEXT-METHOD-P, returning T or NIL, is fine with me.