before and after methods

[Didier Verna]

Steve Haflich <shaflich at gmail.com> wrote:

> As for the original question, I don't see any reason the various
> built-in method combination could not have been defined to support
> :before and :after methods.  But the way they are defined is consonant
> with the short form of define-method-combination, which implies that
> the several built-in method combinations would typically be
> implemented using short form d-m-c.  So the scope of the original
> question probably should be expanded to include short form d-m-c.

  Good point.

-- 
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

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