Re: Implementation Language

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>]

Hi -

bje wrote:
>    I would like to keep Scheme, especially if some of the code is
>    reorganized.  The halfhearted O-O structures (not cos.scm, but its
>    uses) particularly bug me.
> 
> Likewise.  R5RS has no object system, right?  

That's right.

> Is GOOPS a risky proposition?

Well, a little, since it's not purely implemented in Scheme, but partly
in C, and is therefore not portable elsewhere.  Other Scheme OO packages
are pure Scheme (but probably perform less well, or whatever).  I would
not mind adopting a different pure-Scheme OO package, or even tightening
up Doug's current `cos.scm'.

But before any of that, we should sketch out a more ideal object hierarchy
for all the various little devilish types currently used in cgen.


> [...] What's wrong exactly with the Guile implementation--if considered
> as simply an implementation of R5RS?

Nothing big AFAIK --- it's just tempting to depend on its extensions rather
than using standard libraries like SLIB.


- FChE
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE5iLh9VZbdDOm/ZT0RAcmVAJ9wrrfFflcK+OCJ+kmRu43MaX/XrACeLynu
56kJExjP282R+GAbjFzER0U=
=+Qas
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----