[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mlynarik's comments
- To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Mlynarik's comments
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Mon, 23 May 88 16:46 PDT
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-2.text.newest
- In-reply-to: The message of 21 May 88 00:17 PDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Line-fold: no
Date: 21 May 88 00:17 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
``1-22 2nd PP in `Intro to methods': The first and second sentences
seem to be too directly contradictory. I would change the first to
``A method object is not NECESSARILY a function an IN GENERAL cannot be
invoked as a function.'' ''
The sentences in question are:
``A method object is not a function and cannot be invoked as a function. An
implementation may extend the \OS\ so that method objects are functions.''
The reason it is stated this way is that no one writing portable code can
take them to be functions, but we do not require them to not be functions
in all implementations.
Actually, the second sentence is wrong. We do prohibit them from being
functions in all implementations. Chapter 3 is very clear on this
issue. Methods are instances of the class standard-method which itself
is an instance of standard-class. We should delete the second sentence.