Henrik Motakef <usenet-reply@...> writes:
> Is it possible and/or meaningfull to declare the ftype of a generic
> function? It looks like in sbcl (0.8.5), a form like
> (defgeneric foo (x y))
> automatically implies a declaration like
> (ftype (function (t t) *) foo)
> overriding any previous explicit declaration, and issuing a style
> warning about it if they don't match (which they usually don't). Is
> there a way to declare a more strict type for a gf, so that ideally I
> would get neat warning for methods that obviously don't conform to it
> like I would get for ordinary functions?
I think for gfs a combination of types would be the most reasonable type
declaration, e.g. (or (function (string) fixnum) (function (list) fixnum)).
To be practically usable, this should probably adapt dynamically to new