On 15 March 2010 10:56, james anderson <james.ander...@setf.de> wrote:
> good afternoon;
>
> this does not sound like a case for specialization. it sounds more
> like delegation.
> what about hooking an output translator into the components.
> if it is there, it is used. if it is not, no translation happens.
> (as much as i may regret this) the "standard" output translation is
> supplied as the default initform / or default initarg.
> if one supplied nil in the initialization form, that is used instead
> and no translation happens.
>
I see multiple problems with this approach:
* In terms of API, it seems to make things less modular rather than
more, with plenty of "interesting" inheritance issues.
* Also, the knowledge of what needs to be translated or not is often
in the operation, not the component.
* In practical terms, the reading and normalization of output
translation specifications is expensive enough that I don't want to
have to do it for every component or something.

I frankly prefer Juanjo's proposed API, which seems more modular, and
lets you specialize on either operation or component (but most likely
operation).

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom:
the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
        — Attributed to Representative Larry P. McDonald (D), 1935-1983

_______________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel

Reply via email to