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
