Re: Trouble understanding define (!)

[Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> Extensions *don't* propagate back with my suggested change.  The call
> to mumble will result in A:grumble reporting "no applicable method".
> 
> The question now is if this is what we want.
> 
> Part of the answer is: certainly *not* in the case of the MOP.

hmm.  I rather thought we do, generally.  and how is the MOP special?
(MOP's raison d'etre is that it is something that doesn't appear
any different from any other object library, isn't it?).

--mike, hating to be so anal and sorry for the obscure code.

P.S.  I remember there was a discussion on this very list a year or so
ago, in which Cristian Lynbech (well, I believe that was him) dug out
some paper by Kiczales et al which basically said that all you need in
order to not break CLOS libraries is to abide by one simple rule : "no
external overrides".  perhaps it's relevant, perhaps not...

-- 
A CONS is an object which cares.
                -- Bernie Greenberg.