Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!ogicse!milton!milton.u.washington.edu!jsp From: jsp@glia.biostr.washington.edu. (Jeff Prothero) Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos Subject: Naming: clos generics vs common lisp fns Message-ID: Date: 3 Dec 90 21:56:41 GMT Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu Distribution: comp Organization: Biological Structure, U of Wash, Seattle Lines: 13 What's the party line on generic fns vs common-lisp ones? E.g., suppose I'm defining a family of classes which behave much like arrays, but which hold 3-D (x y z) points (and support various messages irrelevant to the discussion). Presumably one would like to use generic functions modelled on the common-lisp ones. Should one use the same names for the generic functions as the native common-lisp ones if the implementation supports it? Prefix the generics with "G-" to avoid confusion? Follow some higher calling than common-lisp convention? -- Jeff Prothero (jsp@u.washington.edu) Biological Structure Graphics Lab, University of Washington Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com