Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Espen Vestre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Can you redefine CLOS methods without calling CLOS functions that tell >> > the object system what to expect (so it can do things like update the >> > MRO cache)? I.e. can you redefine them by poking some random >> > dictionary? You can in Python. I don't claim that's a good thing. >> >> Just as I said: Less managable, but not more dynamic. > > I'm not getting through to you. Yes, you could create a Python-like > object system in Lisp that's separate from CLOS, but nobody would use > it ....
I think you are not understanding the point that Espen is trying to make. He is not suggesting a different object system for Lisp. Espen is saying that Common Lisp often offers the same dynamic feature as Python has, such as the ability to redefining a method at runtime. Lisp, however, forces you to call a CLOS function or use an well defined interface when redefining a method. You can't just change a value in a hash table. Does this make Lisp "less dynamic" than Python? Espen would say it's not less dynamic, but rather that a similar level of dynamism is achieved in Common Lisp via well defined interfaces. The compiler knows the interfaces, so it can do a better job optimizing the code. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
