Guile Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Christian Lynbech <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Supposing a particular user thought this was very bad. He is now in
> some troubles. Asking him to refrain from using #:accessor's and
> instead spell each getter and setter out is not going to make him
> happy, and changing the behaviour of the system is difficult. It is
> actaully possible with goops, but will require a deeper understanding
> of the mechanics (perhaps also modifications to the class hierarchy of
> the users application).
It will be simple if we choose to provide two generic functions in the
MOP for generating the names.
> The bottom line is IMHO that somebody should decide whether we want
> this look like CLOStrt (CLOS the real thing) or STk, or whether we
> want a minimalistic library kind of thing upon which users can build
> their own conventions.
I don't think we want to follow either CLOS or STk (which tries to
follow CLOS) in general. This is because CLOS is based on Common
LISP. This means that CLOS integrates nicely with Common LISP, but
together with Scheme we get clashes in the way of thinking so that the
behaviour becomes nonintuitive.
> Inventing yet another and incompatible way of doing things would not
> be a productive choice, as I see it.
Or we could see it as an opportunity to introduce a more Schemey
behaviour in the object system.
Guile Home |
Main Index |
- From: Christian Lynbech <email@example.com>