Re: A MOP minimisation question
"Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11 Mar 2026, at 19:27, David McClain <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Exactly right. Not to mention that the AMOP MOP sucks in various ways (I will not be drawn on this!). I really need only a few tiny bits of it which I think any CLOS will have: I need the precedence list of a class for computing layouts (and perhaps to be able to encourage it to be finalized so that's known), the direct subclasses so I can invalidate layouts of all subclasses on redefinition and ... I think that's it. --tim _______________________________________________ Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users [email protected] http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html