[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: allowable specializers
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: allowable specializers
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:58 PST
- Cc: CommonLoops.pa@Xerox.COM
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-5.text.newest
- In-reply-to: <8903202243.AA14464@vaxa.isi.edu>
- Line-fold: no
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:43:35 PST
Re: Gregor's note on allowable specializers:
The only permissible parameter specializers are classes and
lists of the form (EQL <object>).
I presume that "classes" here encompasses types defined by DEFSTRUCT
(without the :type option)?
The way I read "Integrating Types and Classes" in chapter 1, I
would expect (portably) to be able to use the name of a defstruct
type as a specializer in the same places where I could use the
name of a class introduced with defclass. Is that correct?
Yes that is correct. As you say, the reason it is correct is that CLOS
amends defstruct to actually define classes (of a special metaclass).
So that statement and my original statement are compatible.
Is there any way to use defstruct
types as specializers in PCL (without defining a new kind of generic