Hi,
Just some more details here, to get this off the back of my queue:
On Sun 01 May 2011 22:19, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
class. And indeed class shows up a lot in documentation and in
code. But that's not how it is
Hi Andy,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
class. And indeed class shows up a lot in documentation and in
code. But that's not how it is in CLOS: our class corresponds to
their `standard-class'. They have a superclass,
Hi :)
On Thu 05 May 2011 18:35, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
If you know GOOPS, then you know that we have classes, rooted at
class. And indeed class shows up a lot in documentation and in
code. But that's not how it is in CLOS: our class
Hey!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Here's the problem, for me:
scheme@(guile-user) (define-record-type foo (make-foo x) foo? (x
foo-x))
scheme@(guile-user) (make-foo 10)
$1 = #foo x: 10
scheme@(guile-user) (struct-vtable $1)
$2 = #vtable:2356fa0
On Thu 05 May 2011 22:19, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Vtables *are* classes, on a fundamental level. Bare vtables are not as
nice as class, but they do describe instances. SCM_CLASS_OF() is
SCM_STRUCT_VTABLE().
OK, it would be more elegant.
Can it be achieved without
