[closer-devel] C2MOP and class-prototype

[Pascal Costanza]

On 22 Aug 2007, at 08:55, Vyacheslav Akhmechet wrote:

> BTW, if calling class-prototype on built-in classes is explicitly
> forbidden by AMOP, would it make sense to standardize the behavior
> accross implementations in C2MOP (by signalling an error, for example)
> to prevent people on non-conforming implementations from making
> incorrect assumptions?

I am hesitating to do such things. The goal of Closer to MOP, at  
least in its current version, is to get CLOS MOP implementations  
closer to what AMOP specifies. Since AMOP doesn't specify anything in  
that regard, forcing class-prototype to throw an error in those cases  
goes beyond that goal - and users of the various Common Lisp  
implementations may actually prefer to keep the default behavior of  
their preferred implementation. (For non-portable programs, that's  
always ok.)

On the other hand, I agree that this is a border case, and may be a  
good starting point for actually introducing improvements to the CLOS  
MOP - which is something I have in mind for a kind of Closer to MOP  
2.0 anyway, only that I don't know whether I will ever get around to  
it (so don't hold your breath ;).

Do other people on this list have any opinions on this?


Pascal

-- 
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium