This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Translation for extension is a bad idea
Michael Vanier <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The problem is that dylan doesn't have a module system which protects
> > classes or generic functions. CLOS has the same problem. You can add
> > restrictions, but these restrictions are orthogonal the module system.
> > I think Guile should not adopt this style.
I wanted to say "orthogonal to the module system", sorry.
> My vague memory of all this is that there is a module system in Dylan, and
> modules can be "sealed" to prevent unwanted modifications. This is
> probably not as sophisticated as what is being proposed for guile/GOOPS,
> though. Also, the discussion is IMO really about syntax, not whether we
> want to support Dylan semantics exactly (which I agree that we probably
Well, I have to say that I don't like its syntax either. It's too
"static", compared with cecil for example.
(Compare that with Tung's module system).