Re: fixes to goops + light structs + 'u' slots

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi,

"Mikael Djurfeldt" <mikael@djurfeldt.com> writes:

> 2008/4/13, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>:

>> Yeah.  More pragmatically, things like SRFI-9 accessors could be
>>  implemented as applicable SMOBS:
>>
>>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/6716
>
> I think it's a good idea to read and understand the code before
> planning changes.  At least given the state of Guile at the point when
> GOOPS accessors were implemented, the current imlementation was
> superior to both a slot-ref-based and a SMOB-based implementation.
> This is because dispatching a smob took longer time for the evaluator
> than interpreting the current special form-based solution
> (@assert-bound-ref).  Note that the current implementation *does*
> compile in the slot position into this form and indeed *has* the
> property which Andy mentions above.  Also, SMOB-based accessors would
> be more heavyweight with regard to class creation and memory
> consumption than the current solution.

Sure.  Note that my remark and the referred thread dealt with struct and
SRFI-9 record accessors, not with GOOPS.

Thanks for your comment,
Ludovic.