Re: with-slots usage question

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 11:00, Tim Moore wrote:
> 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/

Nice.  Thanks for the pointer.  Perhaps you should consider submitting
this article to the folks at common-lisp.net?  I know they're talking
about building a centralized archive of tutorials and other articles
like this.

> > 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 :)

They help, but there's still a lot of stuff in cl-user to clash with.

-- 
Miles Egan <[email protected]>

_______________________________________________
Clump mailing list
[email protected]
http://manly.caddr.com/mailman/listinfo/clump

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/r+aXU4Jq/wH1PVERArQxAKDVveNkWEHeh+mGx7WoIyEn4siUewCdGbgR
5qMpIZuOk0qtfXmaEG0p+j8=
=7SWh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----