[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Compilation implications
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 88 03:46:40 PST
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@Sail.Stanford.edu, CL-Compiler@Sail.Stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Thu, 29 Dec 88 12:59 EST <19881229175913.8.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Thanks for your many comments, Dave. I'm sure they will be useful.
re: ["Reconstructor" forms and mixins]
I don't remember why the CLOS committee didn't put anything like this
into the proposed standard. Maybe we thought it was the Compiler
committee's business, maybe we had some disagreement, or maybe we
just ran out of time.
There is a blend of problems here -- partly object-oriented and partly
semantics of compilation. It could be that the buck is getting shuffled
back and forth and nothing being done. Maybe the time just wasn't ripe
for specifying this protocol -- maybe more experience is needed -- but
sooner or later the user-community will be "push coming to shove" and
the lack of a portable interface could be damaging.
re: [fasling out classes "by name"]
I don't see how any other way could work, actually, since two distinct
compiled files that refer to a class by the same name must end up
referring to the same metaobject after loading.
Right. Separate compilation seems to be the clinching argument.
-- JonL --