[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: LOAD-OBJECTS (Version 2)
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: LOAD-OBJECTS (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 19:00 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CL-Compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <19890113225201.0.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
This looks mostly very good, but ...
I'd like to see a name attached to the default function for making
structure load forms, since you're requiring it to exist anyway,
and also since there might be reason to need to revert to using it
in some structure class for which the method is shadowed by a
superior class that was not `thinking ahead.'
[I call this problem the `DESCRIBE problem,' since the analagous
problem comes up there, too.]
I also think there needs to be a rationale given to making these
functions not be the default. My personal feeling is that if it's
undefined for structures, it should be undefined for instances, and vice
versa. In my mind, they serve the same conceptual purpose, and differ
only in degree of efficiency and syntax of interface. For me, they do
not differ in weird ways like whether EQUAL or EQUALP should treat them
differently, or whether MAKE-LOAD-FORM should know how to dump them.
I think the argument you give for not having a default instance-dumping
strategy applies equally to struct-dumping, so if you're going to make
them differ, you need to say what your reasoning is.