[closer-devel] define-layered-method syntax

[Attila Lendvai]

> So in order to avoid clashes of naming conventions, I would have to
> require that layers are always specified, even when they are just 't.
> I'd find that more awkward than having to say :in-layer some-layer.


after reading your mail i think you are right, my proposed syntax
could be confusing in some situations.


> have sketched above. As a small workaround for the wordiness of the
> keyword, I could accept :in as an alternative for :in-layer. Would
> that help at least a little?


i was hesitant for a moment, but it's define-LAYERED-method after all,
so what else would :in mean?


> Please also keep in mind that define-layered-method already provides
> an extension for accessing the current layer:
>
> (d-l-m foo :in-layer (l some-layer) (...) ...)
>
> This binds the current layer to the local variable l. This is, for
> example, useful when using call-next-method and you want to change
> some of the parameters.


i remember looking for that feature once, thanks for the heads-up! :)

-- 
 attila