[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:No More Object Lisp
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re:No More Object Lisp
- From: Repenning Alexander <ralex@tigger.Colorado.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 10:23:27 -0700
in article 121 email@example.com (Lucian Hughes) writes:
> ...I have a VERY large
> program built on top of it [objectLisp] and I want to be able to use 2.0.
> Do other people feel this need? I assume so since considerable
> interface work has likely been done with object lisp.
> HOW ABOUT THOSE WHO AGREE LETTING APPLE KNOW, perhaps if
> there is sufficient concern it will be seen as a legitimate
Well, I did a lot of work too in ObjectLisp and I like to switch to
CLOS - but GRADUALLY.
Would it be possible to have CLOS and ObjectLisp simultaneously in
MACL 2.0? I suggest that ObjectLisp would no longer be part of the
MACL image, however, it could be part of the delievery (e.g., one
large ObjectLisp.fasl file). What do other poeple think about it?
Although it will be a tedious task, I guess I can handle to switch
from "(ask..)" to generic functions. I consider this more like a
syntactic issue (don't flame me here, I know there's more about it).
Nonetheless, I'm really concerned with semantic/pragmatic issues like:
- how will the future class taxonomy look like (will it be
- will it be a fast as the ObjectLisp variant?
- will MACL 2.0 include a tool to convert ObjectLisp files, maybe just
partially, into CLOS code? If not, will there be guidelines or at least
some hints of how to map ObjectLisp code efficiently to CLOS code?