[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: call-next-method
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 89 13:39 EDT
- Cc: Gail Zacharias <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <19890728184745.0.GREGOR@SPIFF.parc.xerox.com>
- Line-fold: No
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 11:47 PDT
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.
Tentatively, Symbolics' review comments on the draft that has not yet
been distributed for X3J13 review will say that this ought to be changed.