🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <j1kn6ll.objsys@netcom.com> Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com> writes:
> still don't understand why people think functions in CLOS are special;
> except for their left-to-right ordering and lack of default protection for
> their arguments they're still just ordinary polymorphic functions invoked at
> run-time.  Maybe the run-time function invocation not being so commonly
> available explains why this is considered special (and is to CLOS' credit).
> But the lack of default protection means no multiple-implementations per
> type; a severe restriction that I doubt even CLOS' intercessory protocols
> can overcome.  Am I wrong here?  Can CLOS provide for the separation of
> types and classes (or any kind of multiple implementations per type)?

I'm not sure what this means.  It's certainly possible to have
a class (eg, STACK) with subclasses for different implementations
(eg, vector in one, list in another).  But in Common Lisp every class
is a type, so it's not possible to separate them unless by "type"
you mean something different than Common Lisp does.  But then I
can't tell which of the alternative definitions yoiu have in mind.
Nor do I know what you mean by "default protection".

> P.S.  Going typeless is not an acceptable answer.

Why not?  What problem will I have in pracrtice (as opposed to
theory)?

-- jd