Re: MOP question for language lawyers: can you specialize on standard-class

So at least in LW this works correctly (and also in SBCL), which may be why I haven’t run across it.

> On May 16, 2026, at 5:34 PM, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Just use change-class: (eq a (change-class a <other-class>)) but not (eq (class-of a) (class-of (change-class a <other-class>)))
> 
>> On 16 May 2026, at 21:52, Bradford Miller (as bradford dot w dot miller at gmail dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 16, 2026, at 4:04 PM, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bur I've come to the view that (eq a b) but not (equal (type-of a) (type-of b)) is an abomination: if two objects are the same object their types should be the same type.
>>> 
>> 
>> Can you give an example of this? I’ve not come across it myself.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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