[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: user interface macros
- To: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: user interface macros
- From: Gregor J. Kiczales <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 90 11:53 PDT
- Cc: mop.pa@Xerox.COM
- In-reply-to: <9005072251.AA05025@ptl-club>
Date: Mon, 7 May 90 15:51:53 PDT
From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 17:08:50 PDT
From: Jon L White <jonl>
Rather, I think the only point of mentioning the expansion of the
definer "user interface" macros is that our experience with metaobject
creations over the past two years, via portable constructs, *had* to
be limited to these macros.
From a later reply, it looks like Gregor missed the point of that
paragraph by stumbling over the first sentence. Maybe reading the
last two sentences first will make it clearer.
I must have been unclear about my comment on this sentence. What I
didn't understand was why you thought "our experience" had been limited
in this way. I believe that there is lots of experience with direct
manipulation of anonymous metaobjects.
If you read the rest of my reply to your original message, you will see
that I agree with most of what you said. I said that we are only
starting with macroexpansion to get it out of the way. I also said that
the much more interesting stuff is the behavior of the anonymous
metaobjects, and that is on its way.
Also note that the behavior of the anonymous metaobjects is even below
the ENSURE-XXX functions and generic functions. So, like the ui macros,
their behavior must be discussed, but isn't where the real power is.