[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CLOS lambda-list congruence
- To: kempf@Sun.COM
- Subject: Re: CLOS lambda-list congruence
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 88 16:52:10 CST
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of Thu, 15 Dec 88 09:52:13 PST from kempf@Sun.COM
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> The lambda list congruence rules are designed to re-enforce the generic
> function as an interface mechanism. In this design, the lambda list
> is the interface to a distributed implementation, namely the methods.
> The congruence rules match the generic function interface to the
OK, but I don't see how the examples I cited are inconsistent with this
> If you want to preserve the old semantics, and alternative is to implement
> your own generic function type using the metaobject protocol, which
> relaxes the restriction on lambda list congruence.
Looking at document 88-003, I can't find any provision for being
able to do that. Is that a new feature in the forthcoming draft?