On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Pascal Costanza <pc@p-cos.net> wrote:

Hi,

1. intern-eql-specializer is not strictly necessary. ...

I had somewhat noticed ;-)

2. Don’t take the CLOS MOP specification as some kind of final word on how CLOS should be implemented. ...

Usage as made it more or less mandatory by now I think.

3. I’m not convinced that eql specializers are the most pressing concern. For example, the total lack of a good specification for method combination metaobjects is much more worrisome.

Yep! That one was a bit freakish when I redid it lately in the thing I tinker with.

Also, the generic function invocation protocol is too restrictive, in that it doesn’t allow for more modern inlining techniques (like polymorphic inline caches, or trace-based JIT compilation, for example).

This is almost precisely the subject I wanted to address next on this list, in a couple of weeks, when I'll think I'd be ready...

4. If you are really concerned about eql specializers

I am not that much concerned about them and, in fact, I consider the matter settled now.

Thanks,

JCB