Re: what happened to force ?

Gary King <[email protected]> writes:

> I know that its semantics and use are a bit fishy but what happened to
>
>> (operate ... :force ...)
>
> Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to change the defun for operate to
>
>> (defun operate (operation-class system &rest args &key (verbose t)  
>> version force)

Maybe (... &rest args &key (verbose t) version &allow-other-keys) is
less high-maintenance?  (Until :version came along, it was simply
(... &rest args); I think the intent is that the rest of the args get
propagated to the make-instance call, and since users can define their
own operation classes we shouldn't be restricting the initargs that
those operations can accept.  (See also the shared-initialize :after
method on OPERATION)

>>                     :force force

You wouldn't need this, either, even with your version; it's part of
ARGS.

Cheers,

Christophe