before and after methods

[Didier Verna]

zbyszek <zbyszek at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:

> Dnia 2017-05-17, śro o godzinie 15:24 -0400, Sam Steingold pisze:
>> 
>> If you are defining the method combination, you have way more freedom
>> and flexibility than mere before and after.  Basically, you can do it
>> yourself.
>> 
>
> But Didier is asking about BUILT-IN method combinations.  Possibly it
> was hard to define reasonable agreed semantics for before an after
> methods in the case of something like AND or APPEND (technical
> troubles aside).

  Right. I was merely curious. It's pretty obvious to me why you
wouldn't allow CALL-NEXT-METHOD in non-standard built-in combinations,
but I can't figure out why or how before and after methods could be
problematic, so I was wondering...

-- 
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info