[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: some questions on your chapter 2 comments
- To: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: some questions on your chapter 2 comments
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:51 EST
- In-reply-to: <880119-093814-1652@Xerox>
Date: 19 Jan 88 09:37 PST
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
So how about it? Shall we change CLOS so that re-evaluating a
defgeneric removes methods that were previously defined by :method,
but no longer appear in the new defgeneric form? I think we should.
I think that's a good idea. Should we specify how defgeneric knows that a
method was defined by :method. We could use a predicate or we could make
:method specified methods be a subclass of defgeneric-method. This similar to
how accessors methods are specified, and is what I reecommend.
We decided at our last meeting that each class has a slot in which it
remembers a list of the defclass-defined methods. I'm not imagining this,
am I? I remember that idea winning out over giving each method a slot that
says how it was defined or having defclass-defined methods be a special
I think defgeneric should handle its specially-defined methods in exactly
the same way that defclass handles its.