This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: GOOPS: New syntax for `define-method'?
- To: Neil Jerram <neil at ossau dot uklinux dot net>
- Subject: Re: GOOPS: New syntax for `define-method'?
- From: Miroslav Silovic <silovic at zesoi dot fer dot hr>
- Date: 11 Apr 2000 11:29:04 +0200
- Cc: djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <E12elh7firstname.lastname@example.org> <200004110755.IAA00554@ossau>
Neil Jerram <email@example.com> writes:
> I also prefer the proposed new syntax.
> In fact, I have always assumed that you chose the old syntax because
> there was some technical reason why the (define ...) syntax didn't
> work for methods.
> How do these syntaxes work with dotted rest arguments?
I like the new syntax, too, but there is a caveat: in
(define (name arg arg...)),
name is same as the arguments in that it does not have to be a symbol
(i.e. is evaluated and the result of the evaluation is called). Is
define-method symmetric in this sense (i.e. is it possible to use an
expression instead of generic function name?)
How to eff the ineffable?