I admit, I've been caught up in the On Lisp mentality lately. It seems intriguing, especially because CLOS can be so verbose, and macros seem to work more naturally with closures, from what I have learned. So the best answer here is CLOS is the best way to add extensibility to Hunchentoot, correct? On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Edi Weitz<edi@agharta.de> wrote:
Thanks Peter, that's basically the same answer I would have given... :)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Peter Seibel<peter@gigamonkeys.com> wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure those things are "often considered 'better'" except perhaps by Paul Graham. Anyway, the current architecture, as I understand it, is designed to be extensible in various ways. To build that level of extensibility using closures, etc. you would end up implementing something like CLOS.
-Peter
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Jonathon McKitrick<jmckitrick@gmail.com> wrote:
quick question... Hunchentoot recently (?) moved to a more OO model, correct? I'm just curious... since lambda expressions, closures, macros, and other lisp constructs are often considered 'better' than CLOS (less verbose, less overhead), what made Edi decide to move to the more OO design? Surely it wasn't just popular demand. ;-)
--
Jonathon McKitrick http://moltencopper.com
_______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
-- Peter Seibel http://www.codersatwork.com/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/blog/
_______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
_______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
-- Jonathon McKitrick http://moltencopper.com