<[email protected]> writes: >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: Thomas Morley <[email protected]> >> >> You use (oop goops). >> Is there need for it? This is a question not a hidden request! >> Speaking only for myself, I'm not familar with it. So reviewing your code >> will be >> difficult for me. >> We don't use it much so far. > I am a C ++ programmer and like to use classes. As you might have seen > I use several classes, and as far as I know goops is needed for that
Goops is a framework for classes. It is a very, very generic framework which means that it doesn't really prescribe much of a programming style, and we don't have use of it established. Using methods and generics (or what Guile calls differentiating function implementations according to type) on Guile-1.8 has significant performance impact. There are some isolated modules using Goops that don't impact a lot of other stuff (I think a central part of the part combiner). In general "I am a C ++ programmer and like to use classes." is an iffish proposal for things interfacing with user programming and also gives some interplay with who will work with code. MusicXML conversion _is_ isolated from what users in general do. And it definitely warrants building an extensible framework for conversion. So using it _if_ it helps extending the conversion capabilities easily seems like a reasonable idea as long as one does not "infect" other code with generics (like overloading existing operators). The performance for MusicXML conversion itself does not seem critical. > I did use a lot of define-method, as it is easy this way to be type > save. I don't think the cost justifies the effort here. Scheme is not intended as a "type safe" language. -- David Kastrup
