[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on most recent draft: Chap 1 and 2
- To: labrea!Bobrow.pa%Xerox.COM@labrea.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Comments on most recent draft: Chap 1 and 2
- From: Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 88 14:46:35 PST
- Cc: labrea!Common-Lisp-Object-System%Sail@labrea.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Danny Bobrow's message of 3 Feb 88 18:22 PST <880203-182309-3472@Xerox>
re: . . . Should it say that:
"CLOS may be extended to cover situations in which foo is not a symbol."
Very good. I think that is the preferred wording, given that page of
chapter 1 about error conditions etc.
re: But, haven't we already extended symbol-function to take lists of the
form (setf fn) as an argument. If not, how do we get hold of setf
I don't recall how the recent discussions on this mailing list suggested
to do it. A reasonable user-extensible naming scheme, such as Interlisp's
"typed definitions" system or the LispMachine's function specs, would have
form-specific ways to access the created definitions. That is, when you
defined (setf fn) to be a "function spec" or whatever, you would provide
creator, accessor, (and possibly) modifer functions.
-- JonL --