Re: before and after methods

Steve Haflich <shaflich@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