The system that Dan and I are working on does, in fact, have a 'with-accessors' macro that does just what you think.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Ben Hyde wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ pro mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
