On 3/15/10 Mar 15 -3:48 PM, Faré wrote: > On 15 March 2010 15:37, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: >> On 3/15/10 Mar 15 -3:20 PM, Faré wrote:
>>>> >>> Meh, right at the moment I was considering getting rid of asdf:around... >> >> Right, but the programmer is likely to want to be able to have his/her >> own :around method on this function signature.... >> > > What about we reserve > (defmethod foo :around (op c) ...) > but advertise > (defmethod foo :around ((op operation) (c component)) ...) > as user-definable? I'm /very/ reluctant to do this, for a number of reasons: 1. Once burned, twice shy. We (ASDF) did this for clisp once, and we /still/ haven't fully recovered. 2. CL does not really provide language level support (and certainly not portably) for the notion of "reserving" a method. This sounds like an opportunity for a programmer who hasn't read every jot and tittle of the manual to shoot him/herself in the foot. 3. It's strictly a matter of conjecture that this will even help ABCL. Maybe they're about to add define-method-combination properly. 4. It means changing code that currently works. This smells like three steps forward, two back, and I'd like to see us someday actually release some code. I'd /much/ rather we have a conversation with the ABCL folks before we start whacking this code. Best, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
