Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: nathan.baum@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 01:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
On 30 May, 08:11, Pascal Costanza <p...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You're trying to change topic again. define-method-combination solves
the problem you seem to have.
If I wanted a language where there was only one solution to any
problem... Well, no. I'd never want a language like that.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- References:
- Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Jim Newton
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Edi Weitz
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Edi Weitz
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- Prev by Date: Re: Lisp on Nokia N810?
- Next by Date: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- Next by thread: Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior
- Index(es):
