[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
scope of call-next-method
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: scope of call-next-method
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 87 14:51 PST
- Line-fold: no
This message concerns the scope of call-next-method and next-method-p.
Recent drafts of the spec say that the scope of these functions include
the default value forms for optional and keyword arguments. I believe
that the scope of these should include only the body of the method.
I don't see how what the spec currently says can work. The problem is
that call-next-method is defined to have access to the bindings of the
arguments to the method. But if call-next-method is called during the
process of doing those bindings what arguments will it have access to?
What arguments will it pass to the next method? I believe the only
model that can work reasonably is that call next method is defined only
within the body of the method.
So, my model (and proposal) is that:
(defmethod foo ((x boat))
(flet ((call-next-method (&rest args) ...)
(next-method-p () ...))
I realize that we could make the rules different for call-next-method
and next-method-p, but I think that would be gratuitous complexity and