From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: call-next-next-method
Date: 1999/08/18
Message-ID: <3144000912483445@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514379108
References: <lczozwvkqb.fsf@balrog.ece.ucsb.edu> <3143985782199982@naggum.no> <lck8qsdfjg.fsf@balrog.ece.ucsb.edu>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Shiv <shiv@balrog.ece.ucsb.edu>
| 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)))