[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: call-next-method
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 11:47 PDT
- Cc: Gail Zacharias <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-7.text.newest
- In-reply-to: <19890727160635.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Line-fold: no
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 12:06 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
The documentation everywhere says "in the body of a method", which
presumably excludes forms contained in the lambda-list, since "body of
the method" is explicitly defined in the documentation of DEFMETHOD.
Personally I think that was a poor design decision.
Current practice: PCL appears to allow call-next-method in forms in the
lambda-list. Flavors doesn't allow continue-whopper in forms in the
lambda-list, although there is no reason why it couldn't.
I rewrote PCL to allow this because I remembered us having a long
discussion during which we decided this was the desired behavior.
So, I am surprised to see that the spec doesn't say this is right.