[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CALL-NEXT-METHOD and funcall-qua/send-as
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: CALL-NEXT-METHOD and funcall-qua/send-as
- From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 88 11:32:26 PST
- In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 12 Jan 88 22:08:44 -0800. <8801130608.AA15662@bhopal.lucid.com>
Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I've been out of town for two weeks.
In fact, the original question was one of exactly what the semantics
were for CALL-NEXT-METHOD with arguments. This came up when we
were modifying the algebraic specification for method combination to
include arguments. The precise question was whether the classes of
the actual parameters to CALL-NEXT-METHOD could be superclasses of
the actual parameters to the calling method (in which case a more
general method would be invoked) or whether they had to be exactly
the same (in which case only the next most general method would be
invoked). The reply which Danny and Dave gave was the latter. This
limits CALL-NEXT-METHOD with arguments to being able to supply different
actual parameter values to the next most general method, but, as Dave
pointed out, simplifies understanding of control flow.
I agree with Dave's point that this semantics is the simplist, and
thus probably the best.