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

"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>)))

> But 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.

  Put it like that yeah, but wrt your example above, I find this
statement incorrect, or at least incomplete. Since you're using
mutation, you should say same type /over time/.

Now here's a story. I had a stool in my living room, but last week I
knocked it up a backrest. Now it's a chair. Still the same object to me
though...

-- 
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
[email protected]
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html