[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
list of proposed changes to Common Lisp
- To: Guy Steele <gls@AQUINAS.THINK.COM>
- Subject: list of proposed changes to Common Lisp
- From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1985 18:14:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 16 Dec 1985 12:34-EST from Guy Steele <gls at THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Date: Monday, 16 December 1985 12:34-EST
From: Guy Steele <gls at THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Re: list of proposed changes to Common Lisp
Presumably COPY-PERSON, when applied to an ASTRONAUT, returns
something that is a PERSON but not an ASTRONAUT; that is, it makes a
copy of just the PERSON part of an ASTRONAUT?
Well, so maybe it's not so clear-cut. I thought the obvious
interpretation was that COPY-PERSON was the same thing as
COPY-ASTRONAUT when applied to an astronaut. It now seems we have
three possible interpretations:
1] It is illegal to use a copier for an included structure on an
instance of the including structure.
2] The copier for the included structure returns an object of the
same type as the included structure, containing only the included
3] The copier for the included structure also copies instances of any
structure which include it.
If there are three modedately reasonable interpretations, is even more
important to specify which applies. One thing worth considering is
how well the interpretation fits into possible object-oriented
programming systems such as Common Loops.