The new % would solve some problems and you are right about the mapcar thing
which can be annoying.
However the ambiguity as to which class is controlling the behavior of func%
remains but can perhaps be mitigated by yet another convention requiring you
to put the context call in a special place,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 05:50:07PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> ...
>(class +Add)
>
>(dp foo% (X Y)
> (+ X Y) )
>
>(dp bar% (X Y Z)
> (+ X Y Z) )
BTW, another serious drawback with the (foo> '+Cls ) approach is
that you can't easily do some things which make Lisp so p
Hi Henrik,
> The only objection I have against this is that it now becomes impossible to
> know if a certain function is global or not, and if not, to know which class
> it belongs, from simply looking at the invocation.
True.
For that reason I first used a new convention using the '%' character
The only objection I have against this is that it now becomes impossible to
know if a certain function is global or not, and if not, to know which class
it belongs, from simply looking at the invocation.
I think this is a dangerous step towards too much magic that might create
confusion and logica
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> 1. I would put these three expressions into "lib.l"
> ...
>(de dp "Args"
> (push *Class "Args")
> (let "@Msg" (car "Args")
> (def "@Msg"
> (curry ("@Msg") @
>(if (method '"@Msg"
Hi all,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:17:04AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> A call like
>
>(foo> '+Pckg )
>
> is in no regard more encapsulating the namespace then
>
>(foo.Pckg )
>
> but it is more tedious to write and read, takes up two cells more than
> the second (4 versus 2), and e
