Hello, opinion from the peanut gallery below.
Mikael Djurfeldt <mik...@djurfeldt.com> writes: > Any opinions on what is best: Having a define-method* or having the > functionality in define-method itself? I do find the symmetry between define-method/define-method* and define/define* pleasing. For define and define*, one could argue that procedures produced by the latter are slower to call (I did measure). Is that an issue here as well? (I guess one could argue that people writing object oriented code with run-time dispatch are usually not driven by performance as the main metric.) You did mention backwards compatibility, but how serious you expect the issue would be? I personally did not use GOOPS yet, but I have a hard time imagining a real-world code that would be broken by this change. Do you expect there would actually be any? I personally would probably lean towards two separate procedures (mainly due to the assumption of there being a performance impact). Have a nice day, Tomas Volf -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
