[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> in draft status until 2000/04/16
I assume this should be 2000/06/16
> This model makes possible that vectors be regular instances of the
> object system since the object system allows fields to be regular [...]
> or indexed.
Why is it necessary to hard-wire a collection type? Isn't it better to
parameterize a vector class with another class and use this as the
field descriptor? And what about other collection types than vectors?
> The proposed model is based on simple inheritance (for the same
> reasons Java took).
(I assume you mean "single interitance")
Java supports multiple interitance via delegation. Is this
possible in meroon?
> They use keywords ie symbols prefixed with a colon.
In Scheme a colon is a valid identifier. And I find the :keyword
syntax a little bit strange. Instead of:
(instantiate Foo :bar 1 :hux 2 3 4)
(instantiate Foo (bar 1) (hux 2 3 4))
> (set-Foo-hux! aFooInstance anySchemeValue aNaturalNumber) -> unspecified
The convention for getters and setters is: <type>-<operation>-<field>
Where <type> and/or <field> is optional.
So this should be:
(Foo-set-hux! aFooInstance aNaturalNumber anySchemeValue)
> (define-class class-name ...)
I assume all classes "live" in a meta namespace which is probably the
same namespace that holds all modules. But:
> (object->class object)
Does it create a new class? If so, in which namespace?
> This document proposes an open model in the dynamic spirit of Scheme
> (and Lisp).
I do not understand why you say that there is a relationship between the
"dynamic" language Scheme and an "open model". I think such a
relationship doesn't exist. There is at least one "closed model" OO
implementation which integrates nicely into scheme.
And if you take the module system into account, you'll end up with
a "closed model" anyway. The module system must reject external
overrides for example.