[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1 |
Date: |
19 Feb 2001 11:34:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake) |
Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:
> At 07 Feb 2001 12:44:55 +0200,
> Michael Livshin wrote:
> >
> > > In the future, I guess smobs and classes should be defined in
> > > association with specific modules. That way, we can determine
> > > each smob and class by a name like "guile::core::type::keyword".
> >
> > hmm. Guile is, more or less, a Scheme implementation ;). the
> > Schemey way is to have names only for _bindings_, not objects.
>
> Why don't you consider the above name to be a _binding_, then? :)
> Looking up a smob type by name is just a binding, isn't it?
sure. it's just that there's no machinery to treat the smob names as
proper bindings.
what environment/module do smob names occupy?
what happens when you try to register two smob types with name "foo"?
what happend when a smob name is the same as some other name?
not anything unsolvable, of course, just not well-defined.
--
Purely applicative languages are poorly applicable.
-- Alan Perlis
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, (continued)
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/04
- Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/07
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/08
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1,
Michael Livshin <=
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/02/04