Re: Keywords in GOOPS methods

Tomas Volf <[email protected]> Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:46:45 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.lisp.guile.user,gmane.lisp.guile.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hello,

opinion from the peanut gallery below.

Mikael Djurfeldt <[email protected]> writes:

> Any opinions on what is best: Having a define-method* or having the
> functionality in define-method itself?

I do find the symmetry between define-method/define-method* and
define/define* pleasing.

For define and define*, one could argue that procedures produced by the
latter are slower to call (I did measure).  Is that an issue here as
well?  (I guess one could argue that people writing object oriented code
with run-time dispatch are usually not driven by performance as the main
metric.)

You did mention backwards compatibility, but how serious you expect the
issue would be?  I personally did not use GOOPS yet, but I have a hard
time imagining a real-world code that would be broken by this change.
Do you expect there would actually be any?

I personally would probably lean towards two separate procedures (mainly
due to the assumption of there being a performance impact).

Have a nice day,
Tomas Volf

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 853 B)