Steve Haflich <shafl...@gmail.com> wrote: > As for the original question, I don't see any reason the various > built-in method combination could not have been defined to support > :before and :after methods. But the way they are defined is consonant > with the short form of define-method-combination, which implies that > the several built-in method combinations would typically be > implemented using short form d-m-c. So the scope of the original > question probably should be expanded to include short form d-m-c.
Good point. -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info