[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MCL support for MOP
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: MCL support for MOP
- From: Repenning Alexander <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:48:41 MST
firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill St. Clair) writes:
> Adding more MOP support to MCL is on my list of
> things to do, but it's not very near the top of the list so I'm not
> likely to do it soon.
I wonder how high the need for MOP support is on the list of typical
MCL users. Some users are worried about the lack of MCL/MOP features.
Others, however, (including me) don't really use MOP and, therefore,
are worried about making trade offs regarding performance and/or
- what impacts would a full MOP implementation have to MCL in terms of
performance or memory?
- could a full MOP implementation be packaged into a separate module
(sort of like PCL minus MCL)
One of the many nice things about MCL is its size compared to other
Common Lisp implementations. It allows developers to create
applications able to run on low-end machines. However, If more and
more functionality is creeping into MCL (maybe partly due to the
ANSIfication of the Common Lisp clean up process) I wonder how much
longer this is going to be true.