Re: A few questions

[Stig Erik Sandoe <stig at ii dot uib dot no>]

On 22 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:

> Stig Erik Sandoe <stig@ii.uib.no> writes:

[map Scheme -> Java classes]

> One variant is that we only add a "run" method when neither module-extends,
> module-implements, and module-static are specified.  A possible
> refinement is to add an implicit "run" if the module implements Runnable,
> and no run method is specified.  (The idea is that modules by default
> implement Runnable.  Currently that is only if they don't extend
> MdouleBody, because the run method has the wrong return type, but
> that should be fixed.)

I was hoping to use the generation of java classes to allow them to
extend existing java classes, and specify the behaviour of the
constructor which might include e.g a private _run() method and
calling of parent constructors with certain arguments.  In other
words module-implements and module-extends should not impose a
protocol of run() as this may run contrary to e.g specifying EJBeans
in Scheme or in other situations where the protocol is defined to
use a constructor.

> > I am not too familiar with GOOPS, but I know Tiny-CLOS and CLOS.  Do
> > you know when you plan to add GOOPS
>
> When I get time or I get suitable patches.

ok.

[snip CLOS-related plans I need to think and experiment with to say
 something useful]

> > I guess it is an old habit and when writing macros and use them it
> > might be nice to see that the correct code is generated.  I am not
> > sure how this is usually done in Scheme.
>
> I've discussed this issue in private.  Matthias Radestock suggested:
>         (define t (make <kawa.lang.Translator>))
>         (invoke t 'rewrite '(some-expr))
> You can probably do a better CommonLisp-style macroexpand-1
> using the expand method in Macro.

Ok, thanks for the pointer. :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe     stig@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/