[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questions about reflective operations on functions and methods
- To: email@example.com (Paul Stodghill), firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Questions about reflective operations on functions and methods
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:57:12 -0500
- Full-name: Andrew L. M. Shalit
> 1) Are the methods of APPLICABLE-METHOD?, SORTED-APPLICABLE-METHODS, etc.,
> for <generic>'s frozen? If not, what is supposed to happen if I substitute
> other methods in their place.
In general, the current manual doesn't sufficiently specify which
branches of which generic functions are frozen. We are going to
specify this as part of the next round of language design, which
we're about to start.
> 2) What is supposed to happen if I create new methods for these generics.
> For instance, can I add methods to these generics in such a way that
> (<object> <keyword> ...)
> is a function application a la Smalltalk?
The Dylan manual does not say that these functions are used by the Dylan
runtime in performing function calls. So, if you added methods to them,
it wouldn't necessarily have any effect on the system at all.
> 3) If the answer to question #1 is Yes, and the answer to #2 is No, what is
> the motivation for including these generics in the language specification?
That's a good question. It may be that, lacking any intercessory capability,
these functions aren't terribly useful. I can imagine APPLICABLE-METHOD?
being useful as a sort of safety check, even without a full meta-object
protocol. It's harder for me to see how SORTED-APPLICABLE-METHODS would
be useful, except perhaps by the programming environment.