[cells-devel] Re: [cello-devel] Constructor syntax

[Kenny Tilton]

Thomas F. Burdick wrote:

>Kenny Tilton writes:
> > Oops. After an error, *to-be-awakened* needs to be cleared in a 
> > protected form. That stuff is ugly, and I think Cells: The Next 
> > Generation will make that and other ugliness go away.
> > 
> > For now, try this:
>
>Aiiight, that worked.  Now that my expectation of what should happen,
>and what is happening are in sync, I'll dive back in, and finish the
>job.
>
>So ... uh, which approach do you think is worse: using a
>c-slot-makunbound function that works for both normal and
>cell-mediated slots;
>
In this contrast between normal and cell-mediated, does normal mean a 
slot specified:

    :cell nil

or a potentially cell-mediatable slot of an instance in which the slot 
is not in fact mediated by a cell?

    :cell t :initform 42

The former would not hurt since we are trying hard to make Cell 
unbounditude work like CL's, tho I have as a bit of 
programmer-friendliness tended to respond "yo, this slot is specified 
':cell nil'".

[aside: is it c-slot-makunbound or md-slot-makunbound? I have both in re 
slot-value. md- takes the slot name, looks for a cell, calls c- if it 
finds one. By that parallel we are talkin bout md-slot-value]

> or including hacks to make MCL and CLISP go
>through slot-makunbound-using-class?
>
Hunh? MCL does not /have/ a slot-makunbound-using-class (he guessed 
based on MCL not exposing much of the MOP). How can you make MCL go thru 
what it does not have? ie, if (i am guessing) slot-makunbound is a 
function, how do you change its behavior? advise (which is one corner of 
Lisp I have never visited)?

Golly I wish the MOP were part of the standard.

kt