[Openmcl-devel] make-method-lambda ?

james anderson james.anderson at setf.de
Tue Sep 9 13:13:25 UTC 2008


[i sent an indication of my sentiments to pascal, but suppose it  
would be good to add them here to the record]

hi;

On 2008-09-09, at 07:13 , Pascal Costanza wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I tried to use make-method-lambda in SBCL and LispWorks, and my  
> conclusion by now is that it's better to do without. I even  
> presented a paper at this year's European Lisp Workshop, where you  
> can read about some of my reasons.

i've re-read it and remain unconvinced.
i'd rather see [make-method-lambda] implemented with its drawbacks,  
than not see it at all.

[more detailed than in the original]
the paper describes a number of things which make make-method-lambda  
difficult to use.
i'm quite prepared to live without being able to close at will. it's  
more important to be able to control the definition at all.

my prior usage for the example which you gave was to use make-method- 
lambda to generate the method function. one cannot expect a vanilla  
closure to work.

>
> What do you want to achieve? In most cases, there are easier ways  
> than make-method-lambda to achieve what you want...

manipulate the arguments passed to the method.

>
>
> Pascal
>
> On 9 Sep 2008, at 12:38, james anderson wrote:
>
>> morning;
>>
>> make-method-lambda is a know symbol, but defmethod reads as if it is
>> implemented without it.
>>
>> are there any plans to include it in the ccl mop?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmcl-devel mailing list
>> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
>> http://clozure.com/mailman/listinfo/openmcl-devel
>
> -- 
> Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
> Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
> Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
>
>
>
>
>
>




More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list