This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: should GOOPS be built-in?
- To: Michael Vanier <mvanier at bbb dot caltech dot edu>
- Subject: Re: should GOOPS be built-in?
- From: Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>
- Date: 08 Dec 1999 11:28:15 +0200
- Cc: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: who? me?
- References: <19991208083704.D189B5E79F@sith.bbb.caltech.edu>
Michael Vanier <mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Since we're all in soul-searching mode and pondering the future of guile, I
> thought it would be a good idea to bring up the issue of whether GOOPS
> should be built-in to the core of guile or not. Personally (and I haven't
> thought this through in detail, this is just my gut feeling), I tend to
> think that it shouldn't be, but should rather be a module.
>
> [ snip ]
there are at least two possible interpretations of "built-in":
1. distributed and maintained as part of the core, used internally by
the core (good thing, IMHO).
2. the above, and also sits in the root namespace (nobody proposes it,
I think).
it also isn't really clear to me how Goops's being in the core could in
any way preclude implementation of other object systems not on top of
Goops. (wow, I wonder if this is easily parseable, my internal English
grammar gets more generative every day ;).
--mike, who found the above in his soul with distressing ease.
--
For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like.
-- fortune