[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue CLOS-MACRO-COMPILATION, version 4
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: issue CLOS-MACRO-COMPILATION, version 4
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 17:44:20 MDT
- Cc: email@example.com, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, RPG@Lucid.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Wed, 21 Jun 89 18:18 EDT
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 18:18 EDT
> From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> Surely you don't mean that DEFGENERIC will arrange for the gf not to
> be callable. You simply mean that it won't arrange for it to be callable.
Yes, you're right.
> - DEFMETHOD may not pollute the compile time environment by augmenting
> the generic function at that time.
The intent is that simply *compiling* a DEFMETHOD won't pollute the
compile time environment. I agree this could perhaps be made more
> Actually, on an unrelated point, I guess I am also slightly nervous
> about the vague phrasing "may try to evaluate" (e.g., in discussion of
> EQL specializers).
This wording was taken from the amendment Gregor proposed at the last
meeting. I have not presumed to try to interpret what it means. I
personally think we would be better off deleting this particular
sentence from the proposal, and sticking with the simple statement
that EQL specializer forms are evaluated when the DEFMETHOD form is