Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos
Subject: Re: accessing clos objects
Message-ID: <6512.9102151817@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Feb 91 18:17:59 GMT
Sender: welch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: inet
Organization: CommonLoops
Lines: 13

> 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.

I think this may well be a good idea (despite my disagreement with
the "major players" approach in another message).  (It's the process
of approval, rather than the suggesiton itself, I have some trouble
with.)

-- jeff