Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> More generally, a three-level architecture like the one you suggest >> would look fishy. For instance, GOOPS and other CLOS derivatives have >> <object> and <class>, representing respectively the "base" and "meta" >> levels, but they have no need for <class-class>, <class-class-class> or >> some such. > > Actually, a lot of the GOOPS doc finds it useful to talk in terms of > three levels: object, class, and metaclass. Right, but a "metaclass" is the class of class, i.e., a class (IOW, a metaclass is an instance of <class> or a sub-class thereof). So that's really two levels. > Also, in practice, I've done a fair amount of programming using GOOPS, > and have found metaclass-level customization extremely useful. I didn't mean to say it's not useful, just that it's maybe not something one wants to know when reading about structs for the first time. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
