Re: A MOP minimisation question
"Marco Antoniotti (as marco dot antoniotti at unimib dot it)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAG0Nw2kLnqd1pXnaAv6Rh8LbvnRoFPvvDMWfPpyk-UmCtXAS4A@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 2:25 PM Pascal Bourguignon (as informatimago at gmail dot com) <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1- using symbol-plist (get and (setf get) are perfectly good options. They > seem deprecated because there are more sophisticated mechanisms provided > nowadays in Common Lisp, but this old mechanism is simple, efficient, > cheap, and works well (thanks to packages to avoid name collisions in keys). > I ranted about this 😏 but I did forget p-lists. https://within-parens.blogspot.com/2024/03/a-rant-about-r-and-python-and-anything.html Cheers MA > > > > > On 11 Mar 2026, at 12:05, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > As I mentioned in other messages a while ago, I wrote a > trivial/special-purpose thing which does a limited version of SoA. I'm now > slowly writing a more general one which is inevitably suffering from > serious second-system syndrome. > > One of the things it needs to do is maintain information at the class > level: things like the layout of the arrays and how slots map onto them, > and so on. > > Now bear in mind that once, long ago, I was fairly knowledgeable about the > AMOP MOP, but for at least a decade I've barely used CLOS at all (I think > I've had the classic 'object systems aren't all that' moment). > > What I do now is to have a metaclass which has some extra slots and so on. > > But an earlier version didn't do that: it just stored the class-level data > in properties on the class name. > > If we assume that classes always have names (which is a restriction I am > more than happy with) is there really *any* good reason not to do this and > thus rely less on MOP features (I still need some small ones). Performance > is not a good reason: these things are never used when that matters since > their entire purpose is to enable the system to compile things away. > > I realise this is an ideological question: assume I would rather minimise > my code's exposure to the MOP even if using it is The Right Thing. > > --tim > > _______________________________________________ > Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users > [email protected] > http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html > > > -- Marco Antoniotti, Professor, Director tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01 DISCo, University of Milan-Bicocca U14 2043 http://dcb.disco.unimib.it Viale Sarca 336 I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY REGAINS: https://regains.disco.unimib.it/