zbyszek <zbys...@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > Dnia 2017-05-17, śro o godzinie 15:24 -0400, Sam Steingold pisze: >> >> If you are defining the method combination, you have way more freedom >> and flexibility than mere before and after. Basically, you can do it >> yourself. >> > > But Didier is asking about BUILT-IN method combinations. Possibly it > was hard to define reasonable agreed semantics for before an after > methods in the case of something like AND or APPEND (technical > troubles aside).
Right. I was merely curious. It's pretty obvious to me why you wouldn't allow CALL-NEXT-METHOD in non-standard built-in combinations, but I can't figure out why or how before and after methods could be problematic, so I was wondering... -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info
