[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do we have to worry about the names of generic functions?

From: Andreas Rottmann
Subject: Re: Do we have to worry about the names of generic functions?
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:08:54 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Andreas Rottmann <address@hidden> writes:
>> Yes, but when the non-generic are procedures, you can "upgrade" them:
>> (define quit (ensure-generic quit))
> Hmm, but since you really don't know about all the other modules out
> there, it seems like the safest thing when using really general names
> might be to do this for all of your exported generics.  Although that
> feels a bit crufty, and I presume still doesn't protect you from
> exports that aren't a procedure or a method.
You'd only do the above when you *know* a module imported has
e.g. "quit". You can't do much about stuff in modules you don't
import; I wonder what "#:generics merge" does when it encounters a
procedure and generic that have the same name...

That aside, another reason I think prefixes are basically unecessary
is that the importer can always do something like 

(use-modules ((g-wrap) #:renamer (symbol-prefix-proc 'gw:)))

if he insists on prefixed names. You could do something even more
fancy like prefixing only the non-class symbols (i.e. those not like

Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden      | GnuPG Key:
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Make free software, not war!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]