Subject: Re: call-next-next-method
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/08/18
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* 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.

  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))