Hi, On Sun 26 Feb 2017 23:57, David Pirotte <da...@altosw.be> writes:
> 1- setters, as in (define-method ((setter ...) (self <...>) ...) ...) > should (also :)) be inherited, As you mention this is https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19770. I think we have an understanding about why things are the way they are in GOOPS, and you are arguing that they should be different -- different from 1.8 and 2.0. That's OK and making a different system is possible if we have good reasons. It's also possible to extend the current system to implement new behaviors. In this case though I don't know how to make a consistent system with the semantics you are looking for and without losing some of the speed of the current system. I guess you would want for the class defining the slot to define a method that just does (slot-set! obj 'slot x), and not have concrete subclasses define their own accessor methods, thereby avoiding accessors entirely. In that case I would think you could define slots with a different kind of class, or override the slot definition protocol or something, or use a different define-class wrapper or something. In short I think I just don't agree with this change as part of standard GOOPS, so I propose the second solution: to make sure you can implement the behavior you want as a user. What about using a wrapper define-class macro that removes "#:accessor foo" from its slot definitions and translates those to issue definitions like this: (define-method (foo (x <obj>)) (slot-ref x 'foo)) (define-method ((setter foo) (x <obj>) val) (slot-set! x 'foo val)) Andy
