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

On 5/18/26 5:13 AM, Didier Verna (as didier at didierverna dot net) wrote:
> 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.
People in general often first look to our OOP systems when we want to do 
some kind of logic programming (ie. inferencing). But they are only 
glorified structure abstractions, usually lacking anything other than an 
IS-A relation and an inadequate type system. One would have to have 
foreknowledge at design time, that a particular class of object could 
have dynamic "roles" and "configurations". Before CLOS, and concurrent 
with the time of Flavors, Lisp had other object systems of the 
classless"arbitrary traits" and "clone to instantiate" variety. Making 
that efficient, and adding restrictions (sealing/finalizing and 
interface/protocols) is always the trick...

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