[closer-devel] starting work on a port to Corman Lisp

[Jack Unrue]

On 6/29/06, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:
>
> Hm, hold your horses. ;) If these are indeed the only two features
> you need, they should probably be relatively straightforward to support.
>
> Because of my own work with the CLOS MOP, I typically think of the
> more advanced features of the CLOS MOP. But I start to get the
> impression that people find Closer to MOP useful for the very basic
> features - and that makes a lot of sense, of course. Maybe I should
> restructure the library to make it easier to distinguish the base
> features for which we can have at least some guarantee that all
> covered CLOS implementations support them, and the other more
> advanced ones.
>
> For example, the pure introspective features are covered very well
> almost everywhere. It's only the semantics-changing features
> especially in the generic function invocation protocol that are
> problematic across CLOS implementations - but that's also the part
> where there actually seems to be very little demand.
>
> Do people have any specific opinions wrt this topic?

I think breaking out a "basic functionality" subset
is a good idea,  and I'd be willing to help port and
test (e.g., to Corman).

We've discussed briefly the features that I'm using,
hopefully others will chime in as well. Other than that,
I don't have a good feel for where the boundary
around this subset should be drawn.

-- 
Jack Unrue