This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Trouble understanding define (!)
- To: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Subject: Re: Trouble understanding define (!)
- From: Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>
- Date: 01 Feb 2000 17:24:42 +0200
- Cc: Neil Jerram <neil at ossau dot uklinux dot net>, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- Organization: who? me?
- References: <200001142054.UAA00622@ossau> <p2tzou4o5ov.fsf@pampelmuse.zrz.tu-berlin.de> <200001182250.WAA00624@ossau> <xy7ya9nezzz.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se> <200001221200.MAA00478@ossau> <xy7bt6e82ru.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se> <s3zotxrqoz.fsf@verisity.com> <xy7iu0cbc1z.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se> <s3iu0bq1x5.fsf@verisity.com> <xy71z6z35os.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se> <s33drfpm9d.fsf@verisity.com> <xy73drec8ap.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se>
Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> The problem, as I see it, is that it is uncomfortable for the user to
> manage the question of which GFs of the same name really should be
> represented as one GF.
indeed.
> To summarize: Maybe we actually want to merge GFs which get
> "connected" through the module system, but not in other cases.
>
> Suggested new solution:
>
> GFs in different modules are distinct objects, but GFs whose names
> "meet" through the module system share methods."
[ description snipped ]
> Essentially, it's a percolation process where the imported bindings
> are holes. :)
>
> This suggestion is admittedly a bit weird, but it will both be
> efficient (if the right datastructure is selected) and very
> practical.
three things:
1. this is, essentially, a re-formulation of the "there is one global
module for all generics" thing.
2. intead of just arranging for such magic module to exist, we make
the module system deal not only with value visibility, but also
with values themselves (in case of generics). so generics are
magic anyway, but there's more hair in the module system.
3. what happens when you merge two (or more) generics with different
base arity?
4. what happens when you merge two (or more) generics of different
metaclasses, with different methods for
`compute-applicable-methods'?
note that points 3. and 4. are problematic for my approach, too...
did I miss anything?
--mike
--
Non-determinism means never having to say you're wrong.