From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: unhandled keywords to goops "make" should signal errors Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:19:10 -0800 Sender: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <15498.49326.697620.427859@winona.neilvandyke.org> <15522.49014.788932.395068@winona.neilvandyke.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017303859 16127 127.0.0.1 (28 Mar 2002 08:24:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16qVCk-0004C0-00 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:24:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16qVCb-00016f-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:24:09 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16qVAL-0000zj-00 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:21:49 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16qV7m-0008E7-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:19:10 -0800 Original-To: nwv@neilvandyke.org In-Reply-To: <15522.49014.788932.395068@winona.neilvandyke.org> (nwv@neilvandyke.org) Errors-To: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:63 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:63 From: "Neil W. Van Dyke" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:00:06 -0500 If I understand Bug 11 correctly, then it appears to be a very different problem than the one I report. what you request for consideration must surely have been considered before. if we figure out precisely how it is different and how it is the same, perhaps we can apply that understanding. because my personal coding has not yet advanced to using goops regularly, my conjecture from reading related material is that keyword handling in goops follows a non-blocking scheme reflecting its original design model. i imagine when i do finally get to designing classes and instantiating objects, i would view mixin techniques darkly if they were (in return) so opaque. perhaps i misunderstand the nature of keywords in goops and compare it against other keyword disciplines, fruitlessly. how would i tell? goops can be extended to do such error checking, in any case. thi _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile