On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Daniel Weinreb wrote: > The methods called by the callers (1) expect to find the object in a > consistent state, and (2) must leave the object in a consistent state > when they terminate, whether they terminate normally (return) or > abruptly (signal, return, throw, etc.) > > It is possible that there are :before or :after methods on the reader > or writer. In fact, it's even possible that the primary method was > overridden, if this is a subclass. These methods must also keep the > object in a consistent state.
I find it curious, my reaction to that. In part it is warm and nostalgic, as there was a time when I was more enthusiastic about designing in that mind set. I am less so now. I now tend to open module boundaries. I'm much less shy about revealing implementations. I find it more pliable. And I tighten things down in that kind of righteous way only if the code manages to survive long enough to get the honor of maintenance and a large cliental. Anyhow. Recall that with-slots expands to slot-value. That leads me to wonder. Given that with-slots and slot-value are couple, why haven't I observed analogous couple (with-fields and field-value say) for accessors. - ben _______________________________________________ pro mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
