From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: call-next-next-method Date: 1999/08/18 Message-ID: <3144000912483445@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 514379108 References: <3143985782199982@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Shiv | Unfortunately, it looked like it would cause a lot of code duplication | (other than just mref) and I went with the subclass approach instead. um, do I get this? the approach would work, but would involve some code duplication, so you abandoned it for one that involves a lot less code that _doesn't_ work? code duplication is generally solved with macros. in general, most of the CLOS magic is indeed macros and machinery that has been created for you, otherwise it would have caused a lot of difficult code duplication, so I don't see why "code duplication" doesn't _precisely_ mean that you automate the task of duplication yourself. #:Erik -- (defun pringles (chips) (loop (pop chips)))