🚀 go-pugleaf

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 17:45:54 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <Mailer-Daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable
To: <jonl%kuwait@lucid.com>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>>> DATA
<<< 554 sendall: too many hops (17 max)
554 <comp.lang.clos@cis.ohio-state.edu>... Service unavailable: Bad file number

   ----- Unsent message follows -----

. . . 

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:06:25 PDT
From: Jon L White <jonl%kuwait@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <9106172106.AA06676@kuwait>
To: alanr@chopin.media-lab.media.mit.edu
Cc: comp.lang.clos@cis.ohio-state.edu
In-Reply-To: Alan Ruttenberg's message of 17 Jun 91 18:08:03 GMT <ALANR.91Jun17130803@chopin.media-lab.media.mit.edu>
Subject: method definition question

re: My only two choices seem to be to either replicate the code, or to factor 
    the body of the definition of common into a defun which is called by both.

Procedure abstraction is an excellent technique! (the "common defun"
approach -- Object-oriented programming notwithstanding, reports of
the death of the procedural style are premature.)

By the bye, you'd better take another look at the CLOS spec regarding
the integration of types and classes.  DEFTYPE neither creates any
new types (it is like a macro for type names) nor does it even make
any classes.


-- JonL --