[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TRACE Proposal (Version 2)
- To: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Subject: Re: TRACE Proposal (Version 2)
- From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 87 13:24:42 PST
- Cc: kempf%hplabsz@HPLABS.HP.COM, cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 27 Oct 87 16:06:00 -0500. <FAHLMAN.12345902265.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
I'll fold your comments into Version 3.
> Can we assume that the Xerox people will put the necessary hooks into
> the method-dispatching machinery? This would considerably reduce the
> implementation cost for those of us who are using PCL as the basis for
> our CLOS implementations.
I don't claim to speak for Danny and Gregor, but I think the necessary
hooks are already there. I'm currently writing some code to do method
wrapping, since we have some enhancements in our local PCL which require
that invocation of a method function go through a function definition
object, and the tracing code supplied with PCL uses the portable
TRACE mechanism which requires function invocation to go through a symbol.
Standard metaobject protocol hooks are all I'm using. I'm sure there
would be no problem folding the code I'm doing into the release, if
the Xerox folks would rather implement it.