[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: a metaobject extension
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: FYI: a metaobject extension
- From: Gregor Kiczales <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 15:20:00 PDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@mcc.com
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Wed, 1 Aug 90 15:26 EDT <19900801192618.7.MOON@KENNETH-WILLIAMS.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Line-fold: NO
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 15:26 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Yes. I don't just imagine it, I do it.
The class has to have an applicable MAKE-LOAD-FORM method, obviously,
so that the class can be made available as a parameter specializer
name at load time. This is really no different from using a symbol
as a parameter specializer name, we're just using a class in place
of a class-name.
I am about to leave for a few days, and as I originally thought, there
is more to say about than there is time for before I go. But, even
though I see how you are making this work, and had thought of it, it
doesn't convince me. Very much the opposite.
Just for starters notice that what you are doing is making a distinction
between classes for which it is possible to write a MAKE-LOAD-FORM
method and classes for which that is difficult or not possible. The
only such general purpose method I can imagine would work only for
properly named classes. So, it really is a just what you say "using a
class metaobject in a way that is no different from using the class
name". Well then we have blurred the distinction between metaobjects
We should keep having this debate. I think it is important, or at the
very least interesting. I will make real effort to organize and collect
all my thoughts on it in one message rather than put them out one at a
time like this.