> Ian Eslick <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Speaking of append, can we change append to :append for the
>> dependencies protocol? At least as of my fork this hadn't been done
>> and it drives me nuts. Not really taht important, of course... :)
>
> You mean you run into package problems? I thought this was supposed to
> be append, not a keyword (at least that's what my book says).
I have just searched the spec but just found "symbol", no information
on whether this is evaluated. I think it isn't because the current syntax
works and an argument being evaluated by a macro is always mentioned
explicitly.
SBCL seems to agree:
EQM(52): (defgeneric foo () (:method-combination append))
#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION FOO (0)>
EQM(53): (defgeneric foo () (:method-combination :append))
STYLE-WARNING: redefining FOO in DEFGENERIC
debugger invoked on a SIMPLE-ERROR in thread #<THREAD "initial thread" RUNNING
{A8EA7D9}>:
There is no applicable method for the generic function
#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION SB-MOP:FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION (11)>
when called with arguments
(#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION #<unbound slot> "?"> :APPEND NIL).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"weblocks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
