On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote:
> > - One reason why the change from slot name to slot definition metaobject > was made is that it allows for better optimization of standard slot > accesses that don’t need to go through user-defined methods on s-v-u-c and > friends. In LispWorks, you need one extra step to invoke user-defined > methods - you have to specify that slot access should not be optimized. In > your example, the class definition for ‘foo should look like this to > achieve this: > > (defclass foo () > ((a :accessor foo-a :initarg :a) > (b :accessor foo-b :initarg :b)) > (:metaclass tracked-class) > (:optimize-slot-access nil)) > > I see. And are you cool with the pervasive opt-out nature of this :optimize-slot-access option? Looks pretty much like a quite clear rejection of the MOP slot protocol to me. > ... > > If they do then the CLOS subcommittee would be vindicated. > > > That’s exaggerated. The AMOP book has a foreword to the specification > which clearly states that this is preliminary work. Unfortunately, the > foreword is not reproduced in the HTML version. Here is the text, to put > things in perspective: > > ... > > Personally, I don’t believe that forward-referenced-class or > ensure-class-using-class are the most important areas that need fixing. > There are other issues that are more relevant. > > > Quite of a cliffhanger you've done here! Are we going to be treated with a sequel on the very subject of those issues?
_______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro