Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ZAPHOD.LANL.GOV!egdorf
From: egdorf@ZAPHOD.LANL.GOV (Skip Egdorf)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos
Subject: accessing clos objects
Message-ID: <9102151718.AA05833@zaphod.lanl.gov.lanl.gov>
Date: 15 Feb 91 17:18:47 GMT
References: <6096.9102151548@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: welch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: inet
Organization: CommonLoops
Lines: 20

>   > I don't see any Chapater 3  stuff here, Everything given in this example
>   > uses stuff described in X3J13 88-002R Chapters 1 and 2, and CLtL-II.
>
>   I think you have to establish metaclass compatibility, and that is
>   not (so far as I can tell) in Chapter 1 or 2.  If compatibility wasn't
>   handled in this example, I think it should be.

I believe that you have zeroed in on a main flaw in my argument! Metaclass
compatibility is indeed not in any chapter 1 or 2 discussions. And I was
hoping no one would notice (:-).

In my response to jonl@lucid, I suggest that a good interim solution from a
user's point of view might be to define some subset of a MOP that just
deals with modifications to standard-class, without admitting to metaclasses
that are independent of standard-class. This would involve dictating that
any subclass of standard-class is compatible with standard-class. I believe that
this is reasonable.

					Skip Egdorf
					hwe@lanl.gov