[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD@Jenner.csc.ti.com>
- Subject: add-named-xxx
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 13:38 PDT
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-2.text
- In-reply-to: <2785949234-4097219@Jenner>
- Line-fold: no
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 13:47:14 CDT
From: Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD@Jenner.csc.ti.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 14:52 EDT
From: "David A. Moon" <Moon@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 11:20 PDT
After thinking about the above three paragraphs a bit, I think this is
wrong modularity, by your own arguments. I think the caller of
add-named-method should -always- call ensure-generic-function himself.
That is, defmethod really consists of two parts, defining the generic
function if not already defined, and defining/replacing the method.
These two parts should not be combined in the macro expansion. Thus
the arguments to add-named-method should be a prototype method (the
usual kludge for class-discriminating methods) and some keyword arguments
that include a generic function object, qualifiers, specializers, the
method function, and some others that are optional.
I agree with this proposal. At the meeting I proposed that the first argument
be the generic function object, but I think now that this is better. It
provides the right modularity between the class of the generic function and the
class of the method.
I also like this. We will put something like it in the next draft.