Hi!
I’ve been playing with coops for the last few days and I wanted to
profile my code to find the hot spots, but was surprised to find that
none of the generic procedures defined with coops define-generic was
showing up in the profile.
Is this a known limitation of the egg? Is there any way to
Today I hit a problem with some trivial code I wrote using Coops that I just
couldn't figure out. The relevant code is here:
http://paste.call-cc.org/paste?id=d09b2c1438a7f063c07cd089fb3e74c68d0b2804
Yeah, I forgot to add the port argument. In any case, Coops' error message
is misleading:
#no
From: John J Foerch jjfoe...@earthlink.net
Subject: [Chicken-users] coops / override initialize-instance
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:30:32 -0500
Hello,
What is the recommended way to perform complex initialization of object
instances in coops? Say I need to initialize a certain slot based
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
So you example above should basically work, but note that the method
for `pair' will always override the one for `list', since the
latter is a supertype of the former.
That is the problem i am talking about. I know the reason. The new
version (1.4) does not fix that. I can not call a
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.
Sandro
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
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
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
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
From: sch...@uni-potsdam.de
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:09:22 +0100
The version you install is 1.1
Then a new version does not solve my problem. Here is some code:
(define-generic (show s))
(define-method (show (s number))
(number-string s
From: Christian Kellermann ck...@pestilenz.org
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:48:47 +0100
* sch...@uni-potsdam.de sch...@uni-potsdam.de [110119 15:35]:
Hi,
all pairs are subtypes of the type of lists
Then all pairs are lists? What about (cons 1 2)? I thought
Felix scripsit:
In Common Lisp and Dylan, pairs are subclasses of list, btw.
That's because LISTP doesn't do what LIST? does; it simply checks
its input for being either a cons or NIL, so that's the definition
of class LIST in CL. If Scheme's LIST? is being used to define a class,
that class
Dear Sandro,
* sch...@uni-potsdam.de sch...@uni-potsdam.de [110119 03:09]:
Is there a reason why pair is a subclass of list?
This reflects the way scheme sees lists, which are build of pairs:
(equal? (cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 (cons 4 (cons 5 '())
(list 1 2 3 4 5))
= #t
Does this
This reflects the way scheme sees lists, which are build of pairs:
Jeha, i know. A list is a pair, but a pair is not a list. Therefore a
list should be a subclass of pair. (Ok, for '() we have null).
And the other point is, that i can not specialized generic procedures
for pair and list.
2011/1/19 sch...@uni-potsdam.de:
[...]
Jeha, i know. A list is a pair, but a pair is not a list. Therefore a list
should be a subclass of pair. (Ok, for '() we have null).
[...]
Hello,
that is wrong, and you even give the reason why it's wrong yourself: A
list is either a pair or the empty
Hi,
all pairs are subtypes of the type of lists
Then all pairs are lists? What about (cons 1 2)? I thought a list is a
pair which cdr is a list (or the empty list -- exclude that case for a
moment). Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I am not that firm with
types and i am a little
* sch...@uni-potsdam.de sch...@uni-potsdam.de [110119 15:35]:
Hi,
all pairs are subtypes of the type of lists
Then all pairs are lists? What about (cons 1 2)? I thought a list is
a pair which cdr is a list (or the empty list -- exclude that case
for a moment). Perhaps I have misunderstood
2011/1/19 sch...@uni-potsdam.de:
[...]
Then all pairs are lists? What about (cons 1 2)? I thought a list is a pair
which cdr is a list (or the empty list -- exclude that case for a moment).
[...]
Hello Sandro,
you're right, I neglected the case of pairs whose cdr is not a
list. So to be
The version you install is 1.1
Then a new version does not solve my problem. Here is some code:
(define-generic (show s))
(define-method (show (s number))
(number-string s))
(define-method (show (s symbol))
(symbol-string s))
(define-method (show (s pair))
(string-append ( (show (car
Hi,
i am playing around with coops and have some problems with list and
pair. I know that are fixed in version 1.1 but i can download 1.0
only via chicken-install.
The next point is that the performance is not as good as expected. Are
there any tricks? For example i have a method
From: sch...@uni-potsdam.de
Subject: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 03:39:45 +0100
Hi,
i am playing around with coops and have some problems with list and
pair. I know that are fixed in version 1.1 but i can download 1.0
only via chicken-install.
The version you install
Hello!
That recent coops change regarding initform: and metaclasses
was of course bogus. `initialize-instance' now does proper
initform: handling for all class instances.
Has been tagged as coops 1.0 and should be available shortly.
cheers,
felix
Hello!
This announces yet another object system, named (obvious but somewhat lame):
coops
Features:
- the highlevel API is compatible to tinyclos
- based on Dorai Sitaram's ScmObj
- multimethods
- multiple inheritance
- before/after/around methods
- implicit generic procedure definition
- full
23 matches
Mail list logo
