Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!lucid.com!jonl%kuwait From: jonl%kuwait@lucid.com (Jon L White) Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos Subject: method definition question Message-ID: <9106180429.AA07029@kuwait> Date: 18 Jun 91 04:29:44 GMT Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science Lines: 37 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 17:45:54 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable To: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >>> DATA <<< 554 sendall: too many hops (17 max) 554 ... Service unavailable: Bad file number ----- Unsent message follows ----- . . . Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:06:25 PDT From: Jon L White Message-Id: <9106172106.AA06676@kuwait> To: alanr@chopin.media-lab.media.mit.edu Cc: comp.lang.clos@cis.ohio-state.edu In-Reply-To: Alan Ruttenberg's message of 17 Jun 91 18:08:03 GMT Subject: method definition question re: My only two choices seem to be to either replicate the code, or to factor the body of the definition of common into a defun which is called by both. Procedure abstraction is an excellent technique! (the "common defun" approach -- Object-oriented programming notwithstanding, reports of the death of the procedural style are premature.) By the bye, you'd better take another look at the CLOS spec regarding the integration of types and classes. DEFTYPE neither creates any new types (it is like a macro for type names) nor does it even make any classes. -- JonL --