From: Stephen Eilert <spedr...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:50:32 -0300
> 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. > I was just kidding, really. I don't mind at all. Thanks for taking me seriously. Happens not too often. ;-) cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
