Request for review Daniel Ziltener (09 Mar 2026 01:24 UTC)
Re: Request for review Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Mar 2026 01:32 UTC)
Re: Request for review Peter McGoron (09 Mar 2026 01:45 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (09 Mar 2026 18:52 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (09 Mar 2026 22:36 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (11 Mar 2026 22:59 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (09 Mar 2026 22:39 UTC)
Re: Request for review Peter McGoron (09 Mar 2026 23:22 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (11 Mar 2026 23:12 UTC)
Re: Request for review Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Mar 2026 23:23 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (11 Mar 2026 21:38 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (11 Mar 2026 22:48 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (13 Mar 2026 07:50 UTC)
Re: Request for review John Cowan (13 Mar 2026 14:16 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (13 Mar 2026 15:00 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (13 Mar 2026 15:39 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (13 Mar 2026 22:43 UTC)
Re: Request for review John Cowan (14 Mar 2026 07:47 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (14 Mar 2026 07:54 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (15 Mar 2026 23:30 UTC)

Re: Request for review jobol 11 Mar 2026 21:37 UTC

Le Mon, 09 Mar 2026 02:22:59 +0100,
Daniel Ziltener <xxxxxx@bevuta.com> a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> I am at a point with the SRFI where I'd consider it feature-complete.
> Before submitting, I'd be happy to have people take a look that the
> documentation is comprehensive and comprehensible, and the
> implementation works "as advertised". The link in the draft document
> is not correct anymore since the SRFI got a number; the current
> up-to-date draft of both the spec and implementation can be found at
> https://forgejo.lyrion.ch/zilti/srfi-263.
>
> If I understood the process correctly, I will announce it with a
> final one-week review deadline on the main SRFI mailing list by the
> end of next week.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> zilti
>
>

Hello Zilti,

1. My common understanding of 'clone' method is, with vocabulary
of srfi 263, that slots of an object are copied into a new instance.
Then same parents, same methods, values copied.

2. The message 'clone' is probably not well named and can lead to
confusion (see above). The semantic of its action is nearest to a kind
'new'. But 'new' doesn't seem to be a good choice because also of
confusion because it often has arguments that are copied to the created
instance. Possible other choices: derivate, instanciate, create, make.

3. The message 'clone' create a single slot for its parent. What is its
name? 'parent'? If yes, telling it would be good.

4. The message 'has-ancestor' is related to immediate ancestors or to
full ancestors?

5. You choose 'immediate-' as opposite to 'full-' but other
possibilities exist: 'proper-', 'direct-', 'own-', ... or just nothing.
Is there a reason?

6. From code:

  (define-object P (*the-root-object*) (a set-a! 0))
  (define-object C (P) (a 1))
  (C 'set-a! 2)

What are outputs of:

  (C 'a)
  ((C 'mirror) 'immediate-slot-list)
  ((C 'mirror) 'full-slot-list)

?

7. The message 'delete-slot!' only acts on the 'immediate' ('proper',
'direct', ...) instance. Is it possible to tell it in the text?

Regards
José