[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
making gf lambda lists
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: making gf lambda lists
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 20:57 EST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <871111144109.3.GREGOR@SPIFF.isl.parc.xerox.com>
- Line-fold: No
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 87 14:41 PST
I believe that we are going to want to introduce a support function
called something like:
This function will make it easier for programmers who are constructing
their own methods and generic functions to get themselves a congruent
generic function lambda list. This functions will strip out
specializers and optional defaults and remove uses of &key and &aux (and
anything else I might have forgotten).
Can anyone think of a better name for this function?
I have too much mail backlog to find it now, but I think I suggested
that the making of a generic function should accept any form of lambda
list and should strip it itself. Maybe I only suggested that for
methods, but I think it should apply to both methods and generic
functions that you can hand in anything that can be coerced into the
right thing. "Hand in" means as a :lambda-list argument to
ensure-generic-function or to make-instance of the appropriate class.
It's always a metter of philosophy whether to bring functions like
this that we know are in there someplace out into the open and give
them documented names. I like the SETF approach, which says to
document only the ones that the user really has to know about.