Re: mop: modify generic function
- From: Pascal Bourguignon <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:02:35 +0200
John <IxfSWIna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> What purpose does leaving it out serve?
What purpose does having it serve?
The more declarations you have, the more inconsistency you may get:
(defgeneric meth (a b))
(defclass c () ())
(defmethod ((self c) (p1 integer) (p2 istring))
...)
Personnaly, I use: M-x insert-generics RET when the compilers complain.
| insert-generics is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `pjb-sources'.
| (insert-generics &optional imported)
|
| Insert (DEFGENERIC ...) sexps from the (defmethod ...) found in file.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not
want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: mop: modify generic function
- From: John
- Re: mop: modify generic function
- References:
- mop: modify generic function
- From: Vladimir Zolotykh
- Re: mop: modify generic function
- From: R. Mattes
- Re: mop: modify generic function
- From: John
- mop: modify generic function
- Prev by Date: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Next by Date: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
- Previous by thread: Re: mop: modify generic function
- Next by thread: Re: mop: modify generic function
- Index(es):