This is the mail archive of the guile@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]