In article ···@gate.fzi.de, ······@fzi.de (Ekkehard Arleth) writes:
>In article <·····················@zcon.com>, Syed Zaeem Hosain writes:
>|>
>|> Sorry for the confusion - I was not clear in my reponse. I meant to
>|> state that execution order for multiple :after methods for the *same*
>|> method, for the *same* mixin|class|flavor (whatever you choose to call
>|> it <grin>) was not ordered ...
>|>
>|> ...
>
>There is (at least with CLOS) no possibility to define more than one
>:after method for the *same* method, for the *same* mixin|class.
>By defining a new method with the same name, the same specializers, and the
>same method-qualifier the old definition will be removed from the generic
>function of this name.
>
>I don't know anything about flavors.
Hmmm. I seem to be able to remember doing just this with Symbolics many
years ago. Of course, I do not have the code - it was proprietary to my
employer at that time, so I cannot check ...
And, not having used a Symbolics in over 8 years now, I cannot remember
this fact clearly. Sorry if I am totally wrong and off the wall here.
Still ... I'd like a clarification of what an ":after :after" method is
supposed to be.
Z
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Syed Zaeem Hosain P. O. Box 610097 (408) 441-7021 |
| Z Consulting Group San Jose, CA 95161 ···@zcon.com |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 05:50:55 GMT
From: ···@zcon.com (Syed Zaeem Hosain)
In article ···@gate.fzi.de, ······@fzi.de (Ekkehard Arleth) writes:
>In article <·····················@zcon.com>, Syed Zaeem Hosain writes:
>|>
>|> Sorry for the confusion - I was not clear in my reponse. I meant to
>|> state that execution order for multiple :after methods for the *same*
>|> method, for the *same* mixin|class|flavor (whatever you choose to call
>|> it <grin>) was not ordered ...
Hmmm. I seem to be able to remember doing just this with Symbolics many
years ago. Of course, I do not have the code - it was proprietary to my
employer at that time, so I cannot check ...
There were various kinds of method combinators in flavors (like
:PROGN, :AND, etc). Sort of a poor-person's MOP. Perhaps that's what
you're thinking of.