Please don't take this personal, but: Pessimism is infectious. It would be better if you would keep your pessimism for yourself. There is some amount of good enthusiasm still in this community, and it needs to be encouraged further, not discouraged!
If there is enough interest and enthusiasm, then things do move. I have had very positive experiences myself with the Closer to MOP project and ContextL, where many - almost all - Common Lisp vendors were very open to bug fixes and suggestions for improvements, to the extent that the overall support for MOP-based extensions has been considerably improved. Another more recent example is the adoption of ASDF 2.x, which is by now included as a default system definition facility in many Common Lisp implementations. There are more such examples.
Thanks, Pascal
On 29 Jun 2011, at 00:06, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
Hi. I read Christophe's paper on extensible sequences. I don't think this bears on my new package, though, for two reasons:
(1) it's only about sequences; maps don't fit into its framework.
(2) He is proposing here a change that would have to be made to every Common Lisp implementation. As may have been apparent from other email I've sent, I am, sadly, pessimistic that we can really get all of the implementors to make changes in harmony. It's not that they are bad or incompetent or anything like that. It's just that they're busy people with other priorities. In some cases, the priorities include "putting food on the table" (in the metaphorical sense), i.e. it would be easier if someone could pay them to do this, but I don't see how that would happen.
Anyway, thanks for pointing me at this very interesting paper.
-- Dan
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Alessio Stalla alessiostalla@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Weinreb dlw@google.com wrote:
Could you tell me where to find that? Thanks. -- Dan
The paper - titled "User-extensible sequences in Common Lisp" by C. Rhodes - can be found for example here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.65.1604&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I don't remember how well the paper describes SBCL's implementation; I think it's worth taking a look at it to see how it combines CLOS (for genericity) with regular functions special-cased on CL built-in types. ABCL's impl is almost a clone of SBCL's, with only minor adaptations.
I agree that classes in CLOS are overrated. CLOS is mainly about generic functions and it's a pity, imho, that GFs can only be specialized on classes. With minor changes CLOS could be more general.
Cheers, Alessio
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
-- Pascal Costanza The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.