[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defgeneric affects methods?
- To: Common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Defgeneric affects methods?
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 87 16:52 EST
- In-reply-to: <871106-133128-1483@Xerox>
Date: 6 Nov 87 13:31 PST
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
``Except it does affect existing methods if :method is
Here is an issue brought up by wording problems: do you mean
that defgeneric affects the set of existing methods (such as
replacing some of them) or that defgeneric affects some individuals
because when one is ``replaced'' a method is destructively modified?
I think that this is an example where documentation indirection would
pay off. Describe what happens when one evaluates a defgeneric with no
:method options, and thee is an existing generic function. No existing
methods on the existing generic function is changed.
Then state that defgeneric with :method options is equivalent to a
defgeneric with no :method options follwoed by a set of defmethods. We
have said what happens there as well. Similar methods get replaced.
I agree with this approach. I think this is the same as what the document
already says, provided we remove the one offending remark.