Re: OBJECT-ORIENTED CLX

[Kerry Kimbrough <Kimbrough@dsg.csc.ti.com>]

   > Date: Wed, 02 Nov 88 10:24:17 -0600
   > From: "David C. Martin" <dcmartin@CS.WISC.EDU>
   > 
   > In any event, the question of changing a primary
   > interface like CLX, which many people may wish to utilize w/o OO additions,
   > does not seem to make much sense (e.g. should we change the UNIX system call
   > interface to only be C++?).

Good point; I share this concern.

   > The question then becomes ``what should we build on *top* of CLX to make it
   > better for our particular application domain?''

Or rather: how far "above" existing CLX do we draw a new line?  What Warren
seems to be saying is "not far -- just enough to smoothly CLOSify the existing
CLX functionality." I like this answer.  It's useful, not only because it will
simplify the construction of X-based OOUI systems with truly higher-level
features, but also because it appears that many designers of OO interactive
programs would like to plug in at exactly this level.  Moreover, it's doable.
Contrast this with the difficulty of designing the chimerical "standard Common
Lisp window system", much less one designed to suit a "particular application
domain".

The approach I would favor is a CLOSified CLX which would preserve *all*
existing CLX interfaces, with rare exceptions where there is an overriding
advantage.  I expect this would appear in a new package -- CLOSX ("Cloth
Eggs"??!!), anyone?