[pro] [MOP] Does intern-eql-specializer serve any real purpose?

[Jean-Claude Beaudoin]

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 1. intern-eql-specializer is not strictly necessary. ...
>

I had somewhat noticed ;-)


>
> 2. Don’t take the CLOS MOP specification as some kind of final word on how
> CLOS should be implemented. ...
>

Usage as made it more or less mandatory by now I think.


>
> 3. I’m not convinced that eql specializers are the most pressing concern.
> For example, the total lack of a good specification for method combination
> metaobjects is much more worrisome.
>

Yep! That one was a bit freakish when I redid it lately in the thing I
tinker with.


> Also, the generic function invocation protocol is too restrictive, in that
> it doesn’t allow for more modern inlining techniques (like polymorphic
> inline caches, or trace-based JIT compilation, for example).
>

This is almost precisely the subject I wanted to address next on this list,
in a couple of weeks, when I'll think I'd be ready...


>
> 4. If you are really concerned about eql specializers
>

I am not that much concerned about them and, in fact, I consider the matter
settled now.

Thanks,

JCB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20141227/8268aefc/attachment.html>