On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Felix <fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org> wrote: > From: Stephen Eilert <spedr...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops > Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:32:33 -0300 > >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM, <sch...@uni-potsdam.de> wrote: >>> Sometimes the simplest solution are the hardest to see. I do not have to use >>> coops-primitive-objects, I can define my own hierarchie of primitive >>> objects. >> >> That is my experience as well. Every time I import >> coops-primitive-objects, I end up removing it some time later. > > After all the work I put into it? My heart bleeds ...
I've yet to define generic methods on, say, continuations or threads. I assume coops-primitive-objects will be much more useful for those. The issue is not with coops-primitive-objects. Instead, as a program progresses it is sometimes useful to redefine old functions and have them accept more 'specialized' objects. Maybe that's just me. --Stephen Sent from my Emacs _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
