Hi,
Just some more details here, to get this off the back of my queue:
On Sun 01 May 2011 22:19, Andy Wingo writes:
> If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
> . And indeed shows up a lot in documentation and in
> code. But that's not how it is in CLOS: our correspo
On Thu 05 May 2011 22:19, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Vtables *are* classes, on a fundamental level. Bare vtables are not as
>> nice as , but they do describe instances. SCM_CLASS_OF() is
>> SCM_STRUCT_VTABLE().
>
> OK, it would be more elegant.
>
> Can it be achieved without GOOPs
Hey!
Andy Wingo writes:
> Here's the problem, for me:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define-record-type (make-foo x) foo? (x
> foo-x))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (make-foo 10)
> $1 = #< x: 10>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (struct-vtable $1)
> $2 = #
> scheme@(guile-user)> (struct-vta
Hi :)
On Thu 05 May 2011 18:35, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
>> . And indeed shows up a lot in documentation and in
>> code. But that's not how it is in CLOS: our corresponds to
>> their `sta
Hi Andy,
Andy Wingo writes:
> If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
> . And indeed shows up a lot in documentation and in
> code. But that's not how it is in CLOS: our corresponds to
> their `standard-class'. They have a superclass, called `class', which
> is the
Hello all,
If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
. And indeed shows up a lot in documentation and in
code. But that's not how it is in CLOS: our corresponds to
their `standard-class'. They have a superclass, called `class', which
is the real root, and from which e.g
