From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:13:05 +0000
Message-ID: <ey37kdipb0e.fsf@cley.com>

Is it OK for a method to make multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD (with
the same arguments, at least the non-optional ones)?  I'm fairly sure
it is, but I thought I should check.

--tim

• Re: multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD Barry Margolin
  • Re: multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD Kent M Pitman

From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:23:19 +0000
Message-ID: <X3iS9.4$Dk4.551@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>

In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw  <···@cley.com> wrote:
>Is it OK for a method to make multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD (with
>the same arguments, at least the non-optional ones)?  I'm fairly sure
>it is, but I thought I should check.

Yes.

-- 
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:06:12 +0000
Message-ID: <sfw3co6xl6j.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>

Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:

> In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw  <···@cley.com> wrote:
> >Is it OK for a method to make multiple calls to CALL-NEXT-METHOD (with
> >the same arguments, at least the non-optional ones)?  I'm fairly sure
> >it is, but I thought I should check.
> 
> Yes.

It's even ok to just do (F #'CALL-NEXT-METHOD) and give it to some
function F who doesn't know it's a "next method" caller.  It's just 
an ordinary, locally-named function.