SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 12:37 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 14:01 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 14:52 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 15:45 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 16:06 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 14:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 15:22 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 16:05 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 16:39 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 16:56 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 15:23 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 15:35 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 17:05 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 17:47 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 18:56 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 18:59 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Aug 2020 19:45 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 17:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Aug 2020 18:27 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 18:57 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Aug 2020 19:10 UTC)
|
Don't panic
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 19:28 UTC)
|
Re: Don't panic
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Aug 2020 19:34 UTC)
|
Re: Don't panic
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Aug 2020 20:00 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 19:57 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 20:09 UTC)
|
I think the main source of confusion/disagreement has been this: - You want status objects to belong to a class hierarchy (like single inheritance in OOP). - I believe a single-inheritance class hierarchy would 1) add complexity we don't need; 2) risk painting us into a corner if we get statuses that have a "multiple personality" and we have to arbitrarily decide that one of the personalities dominates over the others. It also seems to me that your main opposition to my approach is that you think it's 1) confusing to the user receiving status objects; 2) unreliable to the user receiving status objects. Is this reasonable close?