Carlos Pita <carlosjosep...@gmail.com>:
> So, a question to the experienced lispers here, a question that's not
> specifically guile or goops or scheme related. Is the make (or
> make-instance) way of constructing a new instance usually exposed to
> the final user? Or a factory function, operating at a higher level of
> abstraction, is intended to wrap the lower level, slot-fillig
> oriented, call to make? In this case, a custom initialize method
> implementation should be seen more as a complement to make than as a
> proper constructor/factory.
I saw the light and left goops behind. I built a simple system:
* Not slot-centric but method-centric.
* No classes, only objects.
IMO, the end result is more schemey than Goops.
It contains:
(make-object parentage . methods)
where
parentage is #f, an object or a list of objects
methods contains procedures, or name-procedure pairs
Example:
(define (<point> .x .y)
(define (x) .x)
(define (y) .y)
(make-object #f x y))
(let ((point (<point> 7 8)))
(point #:y))
=> 8
Marko
