"Robert L. Read" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The contract is that make-instance should only be called once for a
> given object?
FWIW, I wrote a CLOS->SQL layer a few years ago, and I do agreed
with this assessment (that MAKE-INSTANCE should only get called once),
so my protocol ended up with t
On Jan 8, 2008 3:31 PM, Ian Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I think we definitely need to fix this. Quite a few people
> have run into the problem that we're violating the CLOS contract on
> make-instance and that we should not use the same CLOS calling path
> for re-initialization th
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 10:31 -0500, Ian Eslick wrote:
> Actually I think we definitely need to fix this. Quite a few people
> have run into the problem that we're violating the CLOS contract on
> make-instance and that we should not use the same CLOS calling path
> for re-initialization that
Actually I think we definitely need to fix this. Quite a few people
have run into the problem that we're violating the CLOS contract on
make-instance and that we should not use the same CLOS calling path
for re-initialization that we use for initial creation. I think we
should require new
I agree completely with Ian.
In fact I have now spent a very embarrassing 5 days trying to modify the
ele-postmodern interface to use "recreate-instance" based on Sean's
patches, and have failed miserably. This is the first time in my career
this has ever happened to me.
I wasted this time in pa
Hi Alex,
I don't think any of the current developers have sat down and really
thought through how the entire MOP interface _should_ work in light of
our learning. My guess is that getting all this right can best be
accomplished by rationally designing all the functionality from
scratch,
