[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: STANDARD-TYPE-CLASS
- From: Gregor Kiczales <Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 5 Jan 87 11:37 PST
- Cc: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa>'s message of 5 Jan 87 09:54 PST
- Sender: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
This message addresses this issue of what to name the class currently
named class, and related issues.
The current proposal seems to be:
There is a class named essential-class, the english phrase "X is a
class" corresponds to (typep X 'essential-class). There is a class
named default-class, this is the kind of class defclass produces, it is
a subclass of essential-class. There is a class named built-in-class,
it is a subclass of essential-class.
I basically agree with this. But it seems to me that it might be a good
idea to use the name class instead of essential-class for the top of the
class hierarchy. This would make the english phrase "X is a class"
correspond to (typep x 'class). In addition, it would remove the use of
the somewhat confusing "ESSENTIAL-xxx" convention from the standard (I
confess that I use it all the time, but that doesn't mean that it isn't
It seems to me that whatever convention we use here will be picked up by
a lot of other programs and programmers. I think that means we should
actually have a convention, with a consistent set of rules which are
explained in the rationale section.