Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life!ksh
From: ksh@ai.mit.edu (K. Shane Hartman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos
Subject: Re: CLOS Private Methods
Message-ID: <KSH.91Jun28001258@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Jun 91 04:12:58 GMT
References: <11744@ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 20
In-reply-to: rathke@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de's message of 26 Jun 91 10:18:26 GMT

In article <11744@ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> rathke@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Christian Rathke) writes:

   Path: ai-lab!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!ifistg!rathke@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
   From: rathke@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Christian Rathke)
   Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos
   Date: 26 Jun 91 10:18:26 GMT
   Sender: news@ifistg.uucp
   Lines: 68

	  In article <42474@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> konstan@elmer-fudd.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes:
	  >Re:  Encapsulation and fear of packages
	  >
	  >I think that the lack of encapsulation problem is more than merely a fear of
	  >packages.  With CLOS, there are many cases where a useful functionality is
	  >unavailable unless you have (and can modify) the source code to a class and/or
	  >the methods which specialize on that class.  For one example ...

Reusing code in this manner without the source is pinheaded anyway.

Shane Hartman