Re: with-slots usage question

On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 07:38  PM, Miles Egan wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 10:15, Peter Seibel wrote:

>> There's a school of thought (which I happen to subscribe to) that says
>> it is bad form. If you name your accesors this way, then when you
>> write subclasses the names expose what level of the class hierarchy
>> the accessors were defined in:
>>
I subscribe to this school of thought too, and I wrote an article about 
it:
http://lisp-p.org/80-closminded/

> Really revealing my ignorance wrt CLOS here (I guess I should actually
> *read* the Keene book I've had on my shelf for years now), but isn't it
> a problem if you try to define a generic function if there's already a
> regular function by that name?  The reason I've been prepending the
> base-class name to my accessor functions is that I've been worried 
> about
> defining functions like name, size, length, etc.
>
That's what packages are for :)

Tim