Re: A MOP minimisation question
"Pascal Bourguignon (as informatimago at gmail dot com)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Or use c2mop the portability library. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ > Le 11 mars 2026 à 20:27, David McClain (as dbm at refined-audiometrics dot com) <[email protected]> a écrit : > > My impression is that CLOS itself has been tightly standardized, but not so much for MOP. We have the AMOP from Kiczales et al, but we already see that LW departs in many ways from SBCL and others. > > So, I guess avoiding too much MOP makes portability an easier thing if that’s needed. > > > >> On Mar 11, 2026, at 12:22, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 11 Mar 2026, at 12:10, David McClain <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> So what are you really trying to say here? >> >> You can do everything without CLOS (or without structures) of course: you could just write Scheme (for whichever RnRS didn't have record types). But sometimes they're convenient, often very convenient: there are wheels which are not worth reinventing. And I am saying this as someone who finds some of CL's wheels so hideous to use that I have reinvented them. >> >> In this case since I am going to use CLOS (because structures have too many precanned accessors), the question is (a) do I actually lose anything by using less MOP (as I said, I need some) and I suppose (b) would it be considered a smell to use less? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users >> [email protected] >> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users > [email protected] > http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html _______________________________________________ Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users [email protected] http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html