[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> More generally, a three-level architecture like the one you suggest
> would look fishy. For instance, GOOPS and other CLOS derivatives have
> and , representing respectively the "base" and "meta"
> levels, but they have no need for , or
> some such.
Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> More generally, a three-level architecture like the one you suggest
>> would look fishy. For instance, GOOPS and other CLOS derivatives have
>> and , representing respectively the "base" and "meta"
>>
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> (1) autoreconf exits with error status, because it thinks that the
>> expansion of AM_GNU_GETTEXT requires a definition of
>> AM_INTL_SUBDIR, and AM_INTL_SUBDIR isn't defined.
>
> If it thinks that then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> (1) has to do mainly with `module-use!' vs. `module-use-interfaces!' (as
> was discussed recently). Namely the fact that duplicate processing is
> not always performed, depending on whether one uses `module-use!' or
> some other means to use a module
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Anyway, does the 1.8 ChangeLog look OK now?
>
> Yes, but I think I changed my mind about putting it in at the orginal
> date. That might make it look like it was in 1.8.0 or 1.8.1 (which it
> wasn't of course).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Right, but a "metaclass" is the class of class, i.e., a class (IOW, a
> metaclass is an instance of or a sub-class thereof). So that's
> really two levels.
That's true, but then it's also true that a class is an instance - so
you could say that's ju
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> That's a fair point, but IMO Kevin's doc layout allows for it by
> putting the vtable-vtable stuff last.
It's last because it's the most brain twisting :).
Is the "ball" example your code? It looks fairly typical (a "colour"
field in the vtable which i
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the "ball" example your code? It looks fairly typical (a "colour"
> field in the vtable which is a constant), if the few words introducing
> it give the right sense of what it's meant to be about.
No, not mine. I didn't recall seeing it before, so I a
