This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Unifying properties
- To: Keisuke Nishida <kxn30 at po dot cwru dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Unifying properties
- From: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Date: 17 Aug 2000 01:41:58 +0200
- Cc: Marius Vollmer <mvo at zagadka dot ping dot de>, guile at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- References: <87itt06dhz.fsf@zagadka.ping.de><m3pun8iy83.fsf@indy.STUDENT.CWRU.Edu>
- Reply-To: djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
Keisuke Nishida <kxn30@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> I think this should be done with the GOOPS integration by providing
> a single generic function `property', etc. I guess there are more
> procedures that can be unified by GOOPS.
I think your right in this. We should all take impression from "The
Art of the Metaobject Protocol" (which I know Marius has read by the
way :)
But don't you think there's a more natural way to use GOOPS in this
case.
Let's say that objects have names. Isn't it more natural to say:
(name OBJECT)
than
(property OBJECT 'name)
?
> After some experience with it, I really love GOOPS :)
Me too, if I'm allowed to say it. (I am because the main originators
are Erick Gallesio, Kiczales and co.)
It really has lifted my research programming to a new level. It's
wonderful to be able to replace selected parts of your code by just
creating a subclass, and, even though it isn't maximally beautiful
theoretically, multiple inheritance really is a pearl!