13 Sep
2004
13 Sep
'04
10:11 p.m.
Martin Simmons martin@xanalys.com writes:
- Why do you have both a DEFGENERIC and a DEFIMPLEMENTATION for
SWANK-BACKEND:INSPECTED-PARTS? Likewise, there are two real definitions of the SWANK-BACKEND:INSPECTED-PARTS method specializing on T. Should it be removed from the backends?
those are both over sights. i'd just kill the definterface form at this point.
- Is it necessary to import CL symbols (e.g. METHOD) into SWANK-MOP?
no, but at the same time a lot of those symbols aren't neccessary for the functionaliy the inspector offers, it was just easier to cut 'n paste from the MOP spec than to sit down and decide exactly what symbols we use. (this same arugments holds for find-class and class-name).
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen