back on topic (was: Re: Off topic (Re: Wishlist questions))

[Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>]

[ I'm sorry if you perceived my previous post as overly harsh.  I was
  kinda hot-headed after reading all those egghead academic comments
  on the SRFI-17 list.  sorry.  with that out of the way... ]

Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@calvados.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> writes:

> Michael Livshin <mlivshin@bigfoot.com> writes:
> 
> > and this is downright bad idea.  I don't *want* to mix module
> > meta-stuff with code.  note that this doesn't contradict the desire to
> > have modules be first-class and in Scheme, and not in some language
> > above Scheme.  it's just that the current mixing of the meta-code with
> > actual code in the same lexical context is downright messy and should
> > go away as far as possible, IMHO.
> 
> Njet.  Just take a look at eiffel or similar languages.
> You don't need signatures -- unless you have to deal with
> foreign code.

[ I presume you mixed up the quotes. ]  yes, I need signatures.  I
want them because I find it natural to think in terms of interfaces.
so there.

> > abstract data types.  oh, and read some introductory material on CORBA 
> 
> Broken by design.  Take a look at DOM and XML. :)

joking, right? ;)  no, I don't think you don't know about CORBA, it
just seemed strange to me that you understood Mikael's comments the
way you did...

> > how does this sort of thing play with separate compilation?
> 
> What do you mean here?  The compiler can compile P without
> looking at the source of Q.

er, OK.

> > and Common is the "fragile base class", right?
> 
> Mabe. -- If you define "fragile base class" as "abstract class".

OK, so then kindly explain the difference between abstract class and
interface and signature.  sheesh.

> > you should be able to use two modules with identical interface at the
> > same time.  
> 
> Forget explicit interfaces for scheme modules, this is nonsense,
> quatsch, gaga... :)
> 
> > it's not an interface issue, it's a linking issue.  it's
> > useful not to confuse the two things.
> 
> Will you post an example of ML's parametric modules
> next?  :)

I'm not sure whether you are serious or not (I rather suspect you are
not), but anyway: supporting explicit interfaces doesn't mean not
supporting implicit ones.  I guess that much can be agreed upon, right?

> Jost

--mike

-- 
You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.