One annoyance of ensure-generic-function-using-class
martin at lispworks.com
Tue Jan 2 15:15:19 UTC 2018
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:27:13 +0100, Pascal Costanza said:
> > On 27 Dec 2017, at 12:50, Didier Verna <didier at lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > there is something annoying with
> > ensure-generic-function-using-class. The MOP specifies that if the
> > :generic-function-class option is not provided, it defaults to
> > standard-generic-function. While this makes perfect sense when the
> > generic function doesn't already exist, it seems to also apply when it
> > does.
> > As a result, if you want to call ensure-generic-function on an existing
> > generic function using a different meta-class, for instance like this:
> > (ensure-generic-function gf-name :generic-function-class (class-of gf))
> > This is a bit annoying, and I don't understand the rationale behind
> > this, if there's one. Why not defaulting to the existing generic
> > function's meta-class?
> ensure-generic-function is the functional version of the defgeneric macro, and is supposed to behave the same way. If you don’t pass the :generic-function-class option to the defgeneric macro, it will also default to standard-generic-function, no matter what the previous definition of the generic function was.
I think the MOP is inconsistent about this, because the expansion of the
defmethod macro is supposed to call ensure-generic-function, but there is no
way to specify the :generic-function-class argument (I know it could look for
an existing gf, but the "possible correct expansion" in the MOP doesn't).
The definition of ensure-generic-function-using-class says:
"If the class of the generic-function argument is not the same as the class
specified by the :generic-function-class argument, an error is signaled."
It makes more sense if that only applies when the :generic-function-class
argument is supplied. That also makes it work like the other keywords,
i.e. omitting them doesn't change anything.
More information about the pro