[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Method Combination Objects
- To: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Method Combination Objects
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 88 22:57 EST
- In-reply-to: <880113-103639-2495@Xerox>
Date: 13 Jan 88 10:36 PST
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
I have no problem at all with the Method Combination Object Layer. It seems
Here is an alternative proposal for a "naming" layer.
(method-combination-instance g-fn name :options options)
is how a method combination name and options are converted into an object.
This looks good to me except for two fairly minor points. One is that
I think the options should be a required argument rather than a keyword
argument. There is no reason ever to omit this. Secondly, I'm not
sure about the name method-combination-instance; it doesn't seem consistent
with the rest of chapter 3. I don't know if you've changed the naming
conventions since the last version I saw, but in that version the
consistent name would be something like expand-method-combination.
Personally I prefer parse-xxx for names of functions that convert
specifications into objects, rather than expand-xxx.
Let me know what name is consistent with what you're doing and I'll mail
out a modified proposal when I get a chance.