Re: propositions, oppositions, and some minor details campbell@xxxxxx 08 Nov 2004 02:48 UTC
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Alex Shinn wrote: > However, realistically most implementations either use a relative of > TinyCLOS (for which slot-setting is customizable with the MOP and for > immutable fields and left unchanged for mutable fields at no extra > cost) or Meroon (which already supports immutable fields), so this > isn't really an issue. This is a little late to add to the discussion, but I just want to contest the claim that most serious Scheme systems that provide first- class record type descriptors base/implement their record systems atop CLOS-style frameworks such as Tiny-CLOS or Meroon. I can think of only three implementations that do such a thing -- Gauche, RScheme, & STklos --, whereas I can think of a very large number of others that either don't support such frameworks at all or, if they do, don't base their record systems on them (T, Scheme48, MIT Scheme, Gambit, Chicken, SISC, Larceny, Chez, PLT, probably SCM & guile, and anything that uses SLIB or Jonathan Rees's records proposal from the late '80s; there are also surely a few more that elude my memory right now). So I don't think it's really reasonable to just punt arguments on the basis that they're solved automatically by such CLOS-style frameworks.