| Modius | Kind of lisp related as Microsoft's identity columns aren't exposed through CL-SQL. . . . what SQL technique is used in non-MS databases to get the equivalent of identity columns (that is, incrementing unique ID columns)? |
| rudi | product-specific techniques outlined in these non-MS database's manuals, I imagine. |
| Jasko | autoincrement columns |
| Modius | Thanks |
| rudi | SQL (relational algebra, really) doesn't believe in row identity |
| Cin | is package::something a way to define things inside a package from without? |
| pkhuong | Cin: it's a way to access unexported symbols. |
| kpreid | it's a way to refer to non-exported symbols in a package without being in that package |
| Cin | oh, oops I've got a class in one package, and I've defined a subclass in another using that, e.g. (defclass example-window (spiffy:window) ()) and then defined a method for that subclass is it possible for the other package to access that in a standardish way? that method, that is |
| nyef | Well, the method is presumably on a generic function known to the other package, so normal GF dispatch should do you if you pass arguments of the right type. |
| Cin | hm, that's what I thought and tried. the package called the method defined within itself (of the superclass) I guess I did it wrongly. hehe |
| rudi | Cin: what is the output of (apropos "the-method-that-Cin-defined") ? if it prints information about two fbound symbols, you have package confusion |
| Cin | let's see it shows, SPIFFY::ON-CREATE and SPIFFY-EXAMPLE::ON-CREATE, both functions |
| rudi | there ya go, then - change (defmethod on-create ...) to (defmethod spiffy:on-create ...) |
| Cin | ah, okay :) |
| rudi | and call spiffy:on-create instead of on-create, of course |
| jsnell | which of the following do you think looks most readable? http://jsnell.iki.fi/tmp/1.html http://jsnell.iki.fi/tmp/2.html http://jsnell.iki.fi/tmp/3.html or http://jsnell.iki.fi/tmp/4.html |
| Cin | rudi, yeah. so that'll enable it to differentiate between classes and call the right spiffy:on-create, yes? |
| rudi | Cin: if I understood you correctly, yes |
| nyef | jsnell: My preferences are (in descending order) 2, 1, 3, 4. |
| Cin | rudi, just confirming |
| action | rudi votes for 2 |
| rudi | votes for 2 |
| nyef | (4 is really obnoxious looking.) |
| rudi | indeed, my preferences are the same as nyef's |
| tritchey_ | 2 looks nice |
| pkhuong | jsnell: did you put the line numbers on their own line on purpose? |
| nyef | pkhuong: I blame your browser. |
| pkhuong | yeah, 2 is really nice. |
| nyef | The thing about 4 is that the blocks are too small, and they're all broken up. |
| jsnell | ok, thanks. that looks pretty unanimous. though not the answer I was expecting |
| nyef | The thing about 3 is that the padding out to the right edge disrupts the reading field. The thing about 1 is that the blocks padding out to the -left- edge also disrupts the visual flow. Which answer were you expecting? |
| jsnell | I was expecting people to like 3 more than 2, due to not having an ugly saw-tooth on the right |
| nyef | No, the "ugly saw-tooth" is important information for finding the right edge of the code. |