> As with my current knowledge, my first idea, regarding the change to the > method lambda list, is to make VALUE an &optional parameter and use the > Common Lisp way (VALUE-SUPPLIED-P) of detecting if it was supplied or > not. That would make things "canonical" at least.
That's a good idea (it should be a kwarg in fact), but it would keep the user from specializing on VALUE. I'm not sure how useful this specializer is, though. Does anyone think that the possiblity to specialize rendering on VALUE is important functionality? > I've no idea on how the semantics should be changed accordingly. For > that, I need to understand the code. It's pretty simple. The current code just assumes NIL to mean "missing value". The new code would instead check whether VALUE was passed at all instead and treat NIL like any other value. > Yes please. I would like to have a good overview of the internal > Weblocks machinery :-) I'll walk you through the responsible code later today and will show you what needs to be done. However don't let this work keep you from writing your app and fixing other stuff in Weblocks that might be more important for it. :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
