Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnewsc!lgm From: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka) Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos Subject: Re: Naming: clos generics vs common lisp fns Message-ID: Date: 5 Dec 90 04:09:44 GMT References: <9012042302.AA08997@caligula> Sender: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka) Distribution: inet Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 21 In-Reply-To: jonl@LUCID.COM's message of 4 Dec 90 23:02:37 GMT In article <9012042302.AA08997@caligula> jonl@LUCID.COM (Jon L White) writes: Common Lisp implementation don't "support" generic functions where the function in question is documented as non-generic (as, for example, AREF is non-generic). But for any other documented generic functions, such as Are functions such as AREF specifically documented as non-generic, or are they merely documented as being of type FUNCTION? My understanding was that GENERIC-FUNCTION is a subtype of FUNCTION, and that therefore an implementor of ANSI Common Lisp is free to make any or all Common Lisp functions generic. And indeed, I strongly encourage vendors to do exactly that, to the extent that efficiency considerations permit. Thus, AREF probably couldn't afford to be generic just yet - at least not on conventional processors - but ELT probably could be. Lawrence G. Mayka AT&T Bell Laboratories lgm@iexist.att.com Standard disclaimer. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com