[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: symbol-class is bad name
Here is another thought on the symbol-class issue. I believe this argues
for keeping the name symbol-class.
Consider the situation if we had a true lisp-1. If that were the case,
classes, functions and `variables' would share the same namespace. For
example (using a Scheme-like notation) the following program lexically
defines a class named foo and some operations on it.
(defclass foo ()
((x :initarg x)
(y :initarg y)))
(define (foo-p x)
(typep x foo))
(define (make-foo x y z)
(make-instance foo 'x x 'y y))
(define (foo-distance f)
I understand that the analogy from this to the symbol-class/find-class
name issue is at best clouded. But, I do believe this argues for
keeping the name symbol-class. The idea is that only a symbol can name
a class, so the function should have the string "symbol" in it.