[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: namespaces, goops, etc.

From: Michael Livshin
Subject: Re: namespaces, goops, etc.
Date: 08 Nov 2000 22:53:03 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to Nikko)

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> Michael Livshin <address@hidden> writes:
> > > 1. define-class - class redefinition protocol
> > 
> > so you give up consistency for magic that you don't even need, really.
> Well, I can tell you that I'm not entirely happy about the current
> solution.  But I really tried to get the least amount of magic with
> preserved convenience of use.
> The magic involved is that the expansion of `define-class' uses
> `defined?'.  Otherwise it expands to plain Scheme code.

this sounds like the prohibition of internal `define-class' is just a
restriction of the current implementation, then?

if you are redefining a class, it's better to have the development
environment notice it somehow than to resort to `defined?', IMHO.  it
may require more effort to implement, but the result is more
consistent and no less useful.

> > * non-interactively, in a running program.
> > 
> >   if this were up to me, I would _not_ invoke the class redefinition
> >   protocol magically in this case.
> I don't get it.  How would the current `define-class' be used
> non-interactively in a running program?

I've mixed it up with `change-object-class', apparently.  was too
sleepy, sorry.

> > > 2. define-method - may need to define the GF
> > 
> > so it can define it in the same local scope.  I don't see any problem
> > here.
> Again, this sounds like magic to me.  Can you explain how the
> expansion of `define-method' should look like?

ISTR syntax-case allowing stuff like this pretty easily, but please
don't believe anything I say until I prove it with references!

> If you have a suggestion on how to improve these macros which is still
> convenient to use, I'm very interested.

I seem to have got myself into an interesting position here.  I happen
to not like inconsistencies.  but in this case the inconsistency is
with a Scheme feature I don't even like -- namely internal defines.
unfortunately, Scheme is stuck with them, so I feel a vague but
pressing need to resolve the inconsistency, or at least to whine
loudly about it ;).

I may well be just overreacting.  if you think so, feel free to ignore 

I have seen the future, and it does not work.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]