This is the mail archive of the
guile@cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: records
Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@calvados.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> writes:
> Miroslav Silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr> writes:
>
> > Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@calvados.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> writes:
> >
> > > The problem is that you can't extend display and + to accept new
> > > types unless you switch to polymorphism.
> >
> > In fact, in CLOS, you can. So... what is your point?
>
> It may be true that CLOS was a good system 20 years ago but today I
> don't think that anyone would be comfortable with it.
IMHO you failed to produce any explanation for this statement. You
also failed to suggest a viable alternative. Note that multiple
dispatch is an absolute must for a dynamically typed language.
> There must be some reason why for example environments were designed
> in a object oriented fashion (polymorphic, not generic like the rest
> of guile :>).
There is. And you can implement this exact same interface on top of
CLOS (or GOOPS). Both are polymorphic.
> But I do know how CLOS handles OO and I am definitely sure that CLOS
> would be the wrong way (TM). :)
Again, why?
--
I refuse to use .sig
- References:
- records
- From: thi <ttn@mingle.glug.org>
- Re: records
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
- Re: records
- From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
- Re: records
- From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
- Re: records
- From: Chris Bitmead <chris@tech.com.au>
- Re: records
- From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
- Re: records
- From: Chris Bitmead <chris@tech.com.au>
- Re: records
- From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
- Re: records
- From: Miroslav Silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr>
- Re: records
- From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
- Re: records
- From: Miroslav Silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr>
- Re: records
- From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>