[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Continuing comments on Draft 11
- To: Cyphers@JASPER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: Continuing comments on Draft 11
- From: Gregor Kiczales <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 1990 17:37:28 PST
- Cc: Cyphers@JASPER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, jonl@lucid.COM, mop@arisia.Xerox.COM
- Fake-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: "Scott Cyphers's message of Fri, 2 Nov 1990 14:23:00 PST <19901102222320.9.CYPHERS@SEAR.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>"
The stuff you sent back was so implementation specific that I am not
sure I understood it. Let me try to propose something like what you
Add a new lexical function to the body of methods, this lexical function
can be used to access the value passed in as the second argument when a
method function is called.
Add a second returned value from make-method-lambda. This value is a
symbol which describes what the method expects to find in the second
argument to method functions.
But, what does this get me? How can I extend the space of what the
second argument/value are for. Because the second value returned by
make-method-lambda is a symbol, and it disappears into the bowels of
the implementation, I can't use OOP to tailor what it means.
I actually don't think that extending the space of what dynamic
information can be passed into a method is going to be tractable given
the current MOP. It depends on a lot of stuff. For example, I think
you would want to attach to compute-applicable-xxx, otherwise you
wouldn't have a basis for caching.