Re: goops proposal: proper struct classes

[Andy Wingo]

On Thu 05 May 2011 22:19, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>> Vtables *are* classes, on a fundamental level.  Bare vtables are not as
>> nice as <class>, but they do describe instances.  SCM_CLASS_OF() is
>> SCM_STRUCT_VTABLE().
>
> OK, it would be more elegant.
>
> Can it be achieved without GOOPsifying too much the rest of Guile?
> I mean, creating and accessing raw structs should remain as lightweight as
> currently, so that syntactic-only records à la SRFI-9 can be
> implemented.  GOOPS objects are currently heavyweight compared to raw
> structs.

Yes, I think it can.  Actually the motivation was to remove the call to
scm_i_define_class_for_vtable from structs, which will allow proper
layering of goops and structs.  (You are right to be concerned, I think;
GOOPS is pretty neat to have, and appropriate to some domains, but has
fundamental problems with modularity.)

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/