David Pirotte da...@altosw.be skribis:
if at least guile designers and goops implementors would have provided a
'switch'
so that we could ask that any and all goops related stuff being in a single
name
space available 'anywhere' at all time [such as guile core functionality is],
it
Hello,
Right, I had misread part of your initial message by focusing on the
lack of a superclass.
there is no lack of superclass, your are giving your opinion, which is fine,
but i
didn't ask, and actually it is a bad opinion: you don't want to [and don't have
to
by clos spec] create a
For the mg-3 case, Actually, only (merge-generics) in mg-3 is needed,
the
accessors are automatically generics.
/Stefan
Hello all,
given the following 4 modules, I am facing what I consider an
inconsistent goops behavior and have one problem which leads to my
recurrent request of goops default behavior should be to [a] always
create a generic function for accessors and methods that do not [yet]
have one, visible
Hi
It seems you are expecting some CLOS behaviour in a language that can
not support it. The accessors are generic functions, but each of your
modules creates a unique generic function, there is no implicit
namespace sharing in Scheme. Define a base module with an appropriate
superclass or
