[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Shared/local;class/instance
- From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Date: 28 Sep 87 1117 PDT
I believe we ought to pick a consistent set of names for these :allocation
types and keywords. I believe that the pair shared/local makes a little
more sense in that I wouldn't expect novices to know or remember that a
class-allocated slot would be visible to the instances and hence shared.
I believe that things like :dynamic or :procedure, to pick up on Danny's
suggestion, are of a nature orthogonal to :shared/:local, because the
latter speaks of the scope of the slot rather than of any implementation
technique. Continuing in this vein, it seems that many :allocation
keywords ought to be allowed: why cannot a :shared slot be :dynamic
Shall we extend the :allocation option to be either a single allocation-type
or a list of them?