[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Random metaclasses for CL types
- To: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Subject: Random metaclasses for CL types
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 89 16:16 EDT
- Cc: chapman%aitg.dec@decwrl.dec.com, common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8905111328.AA04911@bhopal>
- Reply-to: <Common-Lisp-Object-System-mailer@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 06:28:56 PDT
From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
re: . . . or any other implementation-defined
class that is no more restrictive than a {\bit built-in class\/}.
I liked your first version better -- I don't remember 88-002R having
a well-ordered scale for "restrictiveness" of metaclasses, so this
phrase (for me) causes much more confusion than it clears up. But
it's not a big point.
"restrictive" refers to the immediately following paragraph in 88-002R,
which documents the restrictions of built-in-class. The idea is that
if a user program assumes it might be a built-in-class, an implementation
can't screw the user over by coming with an implementation-defined class
that's even worse (can't appear as the cdr of a cons or something).
How about changing "is no more restrictive" to "has no more restrictions"?
Kathy?
On a related theme -- I was wondering if everyone agrees that the
following is also permitted by "Integrating Types And Classes" section.
An implementation may have a subset of some built-in class being
implemented by a different meta-class than the rest of the set.
1-16 says additional type specifiers can have classes, so I think
everyone agrees that the built-in classes can have implementation-defined
subclasses. I assume the metaclass of those can be anything that works.
For example, in most implementations we probably have:
(class-name (class-of (find-class 'integer))) --> BUILT-IN-CLASS
But some implementation might also have a FIXNUM class such that:
(class-name (class-of (find-class 'fixnum))) --> FAST-ARITH-CLASS
where FAST-ARITH-CLASS is not a subclass of BUILT-IN-CLASS. Of course,
the FIXNUM class is a still a subclass of INTEGER.
I can't understand why FAST-ARITH-CLASS wouldn't be a subclass of
BUILT-IN-CLASS. Maybe the example you really meant was
(class-name (class-of (find-class 'integer))) --> SLOW-ARITH-CLASS
(class-name (class-of (find-class 'fixnum))) --> FAST-ARITH-CLASS
where SLOW-ARITH-CLASS and FAST-ARITH-CLASS are disjoint subclasses
of BUILT-IN-CLASS?
[don't take this example too seriously -- I'm more concerned about
subclasses of the FUNCTION class.]
Or maybe you really meant that
(class-name (class-of (find-class 'function))) --> BUILT-IN-CLASS
but
(class-name (class-of (find-class 'generic-function))) --> FUNCALLABLE-STANDARD-CLASS
and
(subclassp 'FUNCALLABLE-STANDARD-CLASS 'BUILT-IN-CLASS) --> NIL
which is specified either by 88-002R or the draft metaobject protocol,
I forget which. Anyway this example shows that you don't have to worry.