Re: Question about call-next-method
"Bradford Miller (as gorbag at icloud dot com)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
It wouldn’t actually be that hard to do, but I’m not going to argue it would have to be part of the standard. One can already redefine common functions in the middle of a program and use them unless their calls were compiled. And I disagree that it would necessarily be a bad thing, unless one is in the static programming languages camp. Not everyone has the goal of building systems that are carbon copies of each other, and there aren’t a host of homoiconic languages that support online evolution. > On Nov 16, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Still less should the behaviour of programs which might add, redefine or remove methods to a generic function while it is being called be defined. People who write programs which do that should be politely refused any further access to computers. CLOS is hard enough to get right anyway (especially if you include the MOP) without adding i sane requirements like that to it. > > --tim