This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: setf.scm


Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se> writes:

> 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.

I totally disagree. It is possible to have CLOS integrated nicely
into Scheme.  Could you give an example how CLOS will insult the
Scheme programmer's intuition?

> > 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.

It amazes me that people think that it's so easy to do better than
CLOS, which IMHO is one of the lovely parts of of CL.  (I recently
picked up Sonya Keene's CLOS book, , ich is excellent).

-russ