On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:09:00AM -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
> >Why bother with an artifical subclass?
>
> Mainly to avoid having the C code in my .pmc
I'm very much in favor of adding explicit metadata, which is
parseable, rather than just limiting ourselves to writing the
executable consequences of the metadata.
Hm. That was a little opaque. Let me try again. I almost always
prefer a declaration like (e.g.)
foo isa bar
over the executable equivalent such as (e.g.)
foo::class_init { copy_stuff_from('bar') }
You can always generate code from parseable data, but not vice versa.
Of course, if the code is formalized enough, you can treat it as data,
but that way lay either a black hole of hackery or Lisp.
Y'know, it's at times like this I envy the Lisp guys, who pulled off
the greatest scam in programming history: skipping the real language
and getting the programmers to write ASTs.
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
