"Pascal J. Bourguignon" :
> Marko Rauhamaa writes:
>
>> Similarly, in my mind, objects don't have slots, they interact.
>
> You are right. Slots are an implementation detail. Notice that you
> have them in all (common) OO systems. But the difference with CLOS,
> with the MOP, (I don't know if GOO
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> GOOPS also, surprisingly, seems to be decades behind in trying to
> present objects as collections of slots.
>
> I once heard this story. The French king had a royal ball in honor of
> the birthday of the French queen. When some lordly guests presented
> their gift, a pai
On 26/06/2015 10:18, Ralf Mattes wrote:
...
This is a first "raw" definition where the parameter /message/ has to be a
quoted symbol.
(define-method (call (receiver ) message . arguments)
(apply (slot-ref receiver message) arguments))
The class definition still looks like traditional GOO
Ralf Mattes :
> Guile's GOOPS is a (rather impressive) clone of CLOS, the Common Lisp
> Object System. I such a system functions/methods don't "belong" to a
> class.
>
> [...]
>
> Message passing only exists in object systems where methods belong to
> a class/object. Generic functions don't "belo
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:21:44PM +0200, Michael Tiedtke wrote:
> (use-modules (oop goops))
>
> GOOPS has some nice features (you can even use unexported methods with
> generics in 1.8) but there is no message passing paradigm.
Guile's GOOPS is a (rather impressive) clone of CLOS, the Common Li
On 25/06/2015 11:07, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Michael Tiedtke :
Nice! What about (define-class () ...)? In GOOPS every
primitive type is (or should be) a class that can be used with
multiple inheritance. It's enough to (use-modules (oop goops)).
My "simpleton" doesn't have classes. It's *objec
Michael Tiedtke :
> Nice! What about (define-class () ...)? In GOOPS every
> primitive type is (or should be) a class that can be used with
> multiple inheritance. It's enough to (use-modules (oop goops)).
My "simpleton" doesn't have classes. It's *object* oriented, not *class*
oriented.
> Then
On 25/06/2015 00:07, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Michael Tiedtke :
Perhaps it's better to recreate a clean object model without 3,000
lines of C code like GOOPS. But then GOOPS really creates the illusion
of an object oriented environment with a MOP ...
I'd stay away from GOOPS -- it's a leap away f
Michael Tiedtke :
> Perhaps it's better to recreate a clean object model without 3,000
> lines of C code like GOOPS. But then GOOPS really creates the illusion
> of an object oriented environment with a MOP ...
I'd stay away from GOOPS -- it's a leap away from functional
programming, IMO.
Here's
(use-modules (oop goops))
GOOPS has some nice features (you can even use unexported methods with
generics in 1.8) but there is no message passing paradigm. Objective-C
has /tell/ Racket has /send/ but Guile/GOOPS is missing /call/.
This is a first "raw" definition where the parameter /message
10 matches
Mail list logo
