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] |
chl@tbit.dk writes: > >>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <bothner@cygnus.com> writes: > > Per> For how implement this in Guile? I leave that to Guile > Per> implementors. One reason I preferred to start from scratch > Per> with Kawa is that having an object-oriented implementation > Per> core is easier to extend. > > A simple hack would be to maintain a hash table mapping procedures to > setters. Procedure objects already have a property list, so that could be used as well. > One could use the procedure itself to get a mapping that > followed the object or names (symbols) to get something akin to the > set-*! scheme. > Following the object names would be the `static' strategy again, rearing it's ugly head. I'm strongly of the opinion that the setter should be associated with a procedure object, not a symbol. > Not perfect, but seems like a usable first shot not requiring > modifications to the evaluator or representations of procedure > objects. Possibly with some hacking it could even work with the module > system such that each module had its own setter obarray. > You could do that if you wanted to have setters associated with a name, but as I've said before, they should be associated with a procedure. - Maciej