🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9210290147.AA08205@gendibal.src.honeywell.com> alarson@src.honeywell.com (Aaron Larson) writes:

   Don't the "^^^" things indicate that getters and setters will always 
   be called with no indication of the object?  Shouldn't they be passed
   the object itself?  For example, suppose that I wanted to store all
   slot information for all objects in a single hash table (or database,
   or...).  The getter essentially must do a gethash, with a key which
   is a combination of the slot name, and some indication of the object,
   similarly for (setf slot-value).  Shouldn't the above become:

You are correct that, in the prototocol I proposed, the getters and
setters do not receive the object.  This means that if the getters and
setters want an object id of some sort, they need to ask for that to be
stored in a field of the object.

One could change the protocol so that getters and setters received the
object.  If we were going to do that, I would suggest adding an
aditional argument, rather than overloading an existing argument.

I am working on an implementation of a very small CLOS, with a MOP, that
has this protocol.  Together with it are a bunch of examples of how to
use it.  (One neat thing about it is that it is all in Scheme.)  The
reflection and meta-level architectures workshop is next week, so I'll
probably send it out the week of the 9th.

Gregor