> > I built 4 iterations of a model/protocol/thing system, accumulating > more requirements for it with each iteration. This discussion has had > the nice side-effect of grooming my requirements into a tidy state > that I can use for reference. What I'm doing next is stripping out all > of the m/p/t stuff and implementing the application in question > without any of it, to see which of the requirements are really > requirements.
Yes, I myself have found it tricky coming up with something that doesn't go too far against the grain of the language. On the subject of Spinoza, when I read through the source, it reads > like a recapitulation of parts of tinyclos. tinyclos has the virtue of > presenting a reasonably complete metaobject protocol that can be used > to implement arbitrary OOP features. Maybe you don't want everything > in tinyclos, and maybe you don't want to do things in Spinoza the same > way that tinyclos does them, but if implementing a CLOS-like object > system, it still seems useful to compare the implementation to > tinyclos, if nothing else, to clarify the differences between what it > does and what is natural or convenient in Clojure. Thanks for the discussion and the reference. I'll definitely check it out tinyclos. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
