This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Off topic (Re: Wishlist questions)
Michael Livshin <mlivshin@bigfoot.com> writes:
> and this is downright bad idea. I don't *want* to mix module
> meta-stuff with code. note that this doesn't contradict the desire to
> have modules be first-class and in Scheme, and not in some language
> above Scheme. it's just that the current mixing of the meta-code with
> actual code in the same lexical context is downright messy and should
> go away as far as possible, IMHO.
Njet. Just take a look at eiffel or similar languages.
You don't need signatures -- unless you have to deal with
foreign code.
> abstract data types. oh, and read some introductory material on CORBA
Broken by design. Take a look at DOM and XML. :)
> how does this sort of thing play with separate compilation?
What do you mean here? The compiler can compile P without
looking at the source of Q.
> and Common is the "fragile base class", right?
Mabe. -- If you define "fragile base class" as "abstract class".
> you should be able to use two modules with identical interface at the
> same time.
Forget explicit interfaces for scheme modules, this is nonsense,
quatsch, gaga... :)
> it's not an interface issue, it's a linking issue. it's
> useful not to confuse the two things.
Will you post an example of ML's parametric modules
next? :)
Jost