Re: Stklos doubt

From: Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa_at_MOSAIC.CS.NYU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 14:06:37 EST

   Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 17:16:48 GMT
   Resent-Message-Id: <9501311743.AA16536_at_MOSAIC.CS.NYU.EDU>
   Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 17:16:48 GMT
   From: carlesp_at_cnm.es (Carles Perello)
   Resent-From: stk_at_kaolin.unice.fr
   X-Mailing-List: <stk_at_kaolin.unice.fr> archive/latest/342
   X-Loop: stk_at_kaolin.unice.fr
   Precedence: list
   Resent-Sender: stk-request_at_kaolin.unice.fr


   OPs previous message has a typo, the corrected one is:

If STklos behaves like CL (which I hope it does), then you still have
a typo.

   I am just testing the Stklos features and I run thru the
   following problem:

   (define-class <complex> (<number>) ((r :accessor real-part :init-keyword :r)
                                       (i :accessor imag-part :init-keyword :i)))

   STk> #[undefined]
   (define-method complex? (c) #f)
   STk> complex?
   (define-method complex? (c <complex>) #t)

This should be

(define-method complex? ((c <complex>)) #t)


Happy Lisping

Marco
Received on Tue Jan 31 1995 - 20:07:42 CET