Re: Unifying properties

[Keisuke Nishida <kxn30 at po dot cwru dot edu>]

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

> Let's say that objects have names.  Isn't it more natural to say:
>   (name OBJECT)
> than
>   (property OBJECT 'name)
> ?

Yes, it is.  But it is an upper level of abstraction.  When talking
about properties, I think a natural way of programming would be:

  1. I want properties for this type of objects.

  2. Okay, I can use object-properties.

  3. Object-properties is not sufficient.  I need a more efficient
     procedure.

  4. Okay, I have written procedure-properties.

So procedure-properties is a special case of object-properties.
I just thought this should be unified with the existence of GOOPS.

But when talking about efficiency, I am not sure how much type
dispatching costs.  If it costs a lot, this shouldn't be unified.
I have been thinking procedure-properties is there until now because
it must be really efficient.