[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CLX and OOP
- To: Robert Scheifler <RWS@zermatt.lcs.mit.edu>
- Subject: Re: CLX and OOP
- From: Kerry Kimbrough <Kimbrough@dsg.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 13:08:32 CDT
- Cc: email@example.com, lanning.pa@Xerox.COM, cl-windows@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, commonloops.pa@Xerox.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Msg of Thu, 6 Oct 88 09:43 EDT from Robert Scheifler <RWS@zermatt.lcs.mit.edu>
- Redistributed: commonloops.pa
- Sender: KK@Sierra.csc.ti.com
Regarding the proper relationship between CLX and OOP: First, I believe there
will be little disagreement with the notion that this relationship must be
defined in terms of CLOS.
But one idea that occurs immediately is that CLX could be "CLOS-ified" in a
straight-forward way by defining all of its base objects (window, display, font,
etc.) as CLOS classes and defining all of its functions as generics. Maybe the
"all"'s should be "most"'s, but you get the idea. Without having actually gone
through the whole exercise, I presume that this could be done without change to
any of the function/type names or lambda lists. What do people see as the pro's
and con's of this?
BTW: This is sorta what CLUE does, except only window is (re)defined as a class
and none of of the CLX functions are made generic. In terms of changes to
off-the-shelf CLX, this was the least we could do, so that's what we did.
Also: this kind of "CLOS-ified" CLX has little (if anything) to do with the issue of
"What is the best X toolkit interface for Lisp."