In CLOS, instance remorphing considered useless in practice?
jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 11:45:40 UTC 2020
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:18 AM Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti at unimib.it>
> ... I forgot.
> Let's get the CLtL2 "Environment" API back in the "extended" spec.
> Which brings me to the following statement. The issue here is to *extend
> *the spec; not to cut pieces out of it.
CLtL2 "Environment" API is second from the top of my list of things to do.
But I am of the opinion that this API needs one or two corrections before
being good enough for primetime. But currently I need first to finish my
C99-complete FFI thing.
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Marco Antoniotti <
> marco.antoniotti at unimib.it> wrote:
>> the point is that CLOS is not a "library", although it was certainly
>> possible to implement it that way.. It is an integral part of CL "as is".
>> I see that the discussion has gone ahead, but here is my 2 cents. I don't
>> have much time to work on it due to my day job (and other - retrocomputing
>> - distractions).
>> First of all there are several issues with CL which need to be clarified.
>> - Some time ago, I started looking at reviewing the condition
>> hierarchy. The motivation being the fact that
>> (read-from-string "I-AM-NOT-A-PACKAGE::FOO")
>> yields different conditions in different implementations. This is
>> just an example: there are many, many more.
You have to hit directly on it to see what could be wrong with it. I cannot
do much about other implementations though.
>> - If your really want to help a "smart enough compiler" to produce
>> fast code, what about writing up a precise explanation, wrt the current CL
>> standard of what an extension like
>> (defclass foo (a1 a2 ... an)
>> (... slots...)
>> (:sealed t))
>> should actually do?
>> I tried myself at this one quite a while back and got a very big
headache. If I recall correctly my working conclusion was that this
:sealed option of cl:defclass was targeting the wrong thing. The CPL of
the class was the real key instead and I could not see how to nail that
one. But that has been quite a while ago so I could be fabulating here.
>> - I still would like to be able to write an interval arithmetic
>> package in Common Lisp (yes; I may have hooked up a student to finish the
>> grunt work of producing an initial spec that could be discussed in detail.
>> Looks like a "also nice to have".
>> - Can we have a common and Common Lispy network interface?
>> Such a nice candidate for a (standard?) library.
>> - Did I mention
>> (pathname-device some-pathname)
>> Specifically pathname-device alone or the whole pathname business?
>> The list can go on. But what I have in mind are all clarifications and
>> extension to the CL spec as is. Not that there aren't libraries out there
>> that do some or most of what I have in mind, but that's' the way things are
>> right now
Thank you very much for all this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pro