[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Continuing comments on Draft 11
- To: jonl@lucid.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Continuing comments on Draft 11
- From: Scott Cyphers <Cyphers@JASPER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 1990 07:49:00 PST
- Cc: mop@arisia.Xerox.COM
- In-reply-to: <9011020607.AA20880@caligula>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 1990 01:07 EST
From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
In addition, as far as I know, no one has addressed the question of
methods requireing "next methods" context yet.
It turns out that I reimplemented how method combination works, and
forgot to tell myself that things turned out simpler that time around.
I no longer have any strong objections to the hierarchy of method
classes. I am mildly wondering if we need accessor methods at all, but
haven't had a chance to think about it yet.
Internally, in our implementation, all the functions that implement
methods (I'll avoid the word method-function), as well as those which
implement the connecting glue of an effective method, take an extra
argument. The second value returned form MAKE-METHOD-LAMBDA tells what
the method's function expects to find in the extra argument. Our method
combination code fills in the extra argument. Presumably an
APPLY-METHOD-LAMBDA kind of thing would have to do the same thing.