This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Translation for extension is a bad idea
> Cc: guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
> From: Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
> Date: 13 Jul 2000 01:02:55 +0200
>
> Michael Vanier <mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> > Dylan would be a pretty good target for guile translators, since it also
> > supports a CLOS-like object system.
>
> The problem is that dylan doesn't have a module system which protects
> classes or generic functions. CLOS has the same problem. You can add
> restrictions, but these restrictions are orthogonal the module system.
> I think Guile should not adopt this style.
>
>
> Jost
>
My vague memory of all this is that there is a module system in Dylan, and
modules can be "sealed" to prevent unwanted modifications. This is
probably not as sophisticated as what is being proposed for guile/GOOPS,
though. Also, the discussion is IMO really about syntax, not whether we
want to support Dylan semantics exactly (which I agree that we probably
don't).
Mike