🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 15 Nov 90 10:18:47 GMT
   From: marquard@rimfaxe.diku.dk (Morten Marquard)

   In "normal" object-oriented languages (SmallTalk, C++) an object can
   exist alone. An object consist of a state and a set of methods, and
   only the methods can change the state of the object.

   In CLOS an object can be changed by a generic function, in spite of
   the fact that the object does not "own" the generic function, eq. a
   generic function can change the state of an object, without the object
   itself knowing it is has been changed!

Could you please rephrase your question?  What does it mean to "own" a
method?  The actual method invoked by a generic function may be found
due to some search, but that is no different than the case of the
languages you cite.  The method ultimately selected still must have
been defined for the class or one of its parents.

If you mean that handlers are not all declared or defined lexically
within the definition of some class, well, personally I consider that
an advantage, but there are people (and languages) that can make a
strong argument that it's a bad idea.

					  I have diskussed this with
   others, and a lot of people do not view CLOS as an object-oriented
   language.

It's ironic that an arriviste language like C++ is considered
"normal."