On 12/07/2010 09:19 PM, Faré wrote:
> A better question might be
> how do you enforce disjointness of some mixins. I suppose a
> heavy-handed use of MOP magic could do it, but oh well.
Q: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
A: Well, don't do that.
In the examples I looked at that inspired me to use I
On 7 December 2010 14:00, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2010, at 18:16, Faré wrote:
> The term 'mixins' sets of my alarm bells. ;) But first a question, to better
> understand what you mean here: How do you reconcile the notion of mixins with
> multiple dispatch?
>
I don't know that there's
On 1 Dec 2010, at 18:16, Faré wrote:
> On 1 December 2010 10:25, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
>> First, a common base class can provide implementations of some of the
>> generic functions all by itself. My favorite simple example is an
>> "output stream" protocol, that has a write-character operation
On 1 Dec 2010, at 21:16, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> I have always liked the idea of having protocols
> say more than just "these are the functions
> and these are the arguments, which are optional,
> ane maybe what their types are. I'd love it
> if there were a way to say "in order to fulfill
> thi
Yes.
On 7 Dec 2010, at 19:36, Peter Seibel wrote:
> You mean PCL the CLOS implementation, right?
>
> -Peter
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 13:34, Martin Simmons wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is confusing to use (values) for that purpose, becaus
On 1 Dec 2010, at 16:25, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> I call the set of defgenerics (plus the factory functions) the
> "protocol". The word "type" is sort of right but carries a lot of
> connotations and freight that I'd rather avoid.
In the Haskell community, these beasts are called 'type classes'.
You mean PCL the CLOS implementation, right?
-Peter
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
> On 3 Dec 2010, at 13:34, Martin Simmons wrote:
>
>> I think it is confusing to use (values) for that purpose, because "no values"
>> is also a valid return value (e.g. for reader macro
On 3 Dec 2010, at 13:34, Martin Simmons wrote:
> I think it is confusing to use (values) for that purpose, because "no values"
> is also a valid return value (e.g. for reader macro functions
> http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/02_add.htm).
>
> I would make it a macro, called
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Daniel Herring wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
>
>> Smalltalk didn't even try. CLOS, I believe, does not try and there is
>> not an idiomatic way to do it. The only language I know that makes a
>> good stab in this direction is C++, which has "p
