From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Keywords in GOOPS methods Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:20:04 +0100 Organization: AvatarAcademy.nl Message-ID: <87h67zxxxn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87iksg2qnm.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5930"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: guile-devel , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-user , Andy Wingo To: Mikael Djurfeldt Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 22 13:20:31 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tESeF-0001Oh-F2 for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:20:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tESdt-0001aI-MV; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:20:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tESdq-0001YQ-OZ; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:20:06 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tESdq-0002bM-C0; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:20:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=o+0G4f/jhlBVYNGQszpQ97U6Yd+6SF36tNeLVZIsi3I=; b=ZtpnVgRxiijKP5KtJi6B RtowrO9RJrk4MRgEeykkOfxZpcK/fkvNrnMnmen4eXr9lqoWlqHvKaj4cFsuAbij4nzH46HrpwY3b +0XrNG90z9fvzZ/ZBIJTC1MhtO0EpfYLOFjwh7i9Ipb1Sb5nLjEB94QNhHIAKAt4tnNRIWrRA8kr5 kMOGfM2dPFnA5WBYgECIxO97iXjEKhuXb+lsZ6AIvwhXTrvIIlpnF+2Hs+1VD2WX8WTdolgledNCr muIAy94mxKm/fUQfKP2UH1IHYxHmTe4gp0Omua5HyInZTN7MDLXYgh1b1AKwyXQ1tGz/WKleKitv2 VYCV9LrH/77G3A==; In-Reply-To: (Mikael Djurfeldt's message of "Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:51:45 +0100") X-Url: http://AvatarAcademy.nl X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:22785 gmane.lisp.guile.user:19912 Archived-At: Mikael Djurfeldt writes: Hello, > That was elegant. :-) :) > Nope---haven't seen it. (Or, at least I do not remember it.) > > Maybe I should have a look at what the optimizer can do about Mark's > code. (As you might have seen, my code is a modification of the method > syntax implementation itself.) Yes, I didn't quite get if this brings something else too, except for the obvious > Any opinions on what is best: Having a define-method* or having the > functionality in define-method itself? ...which I think in your version, not having to use define-method* feels more elegant/GOOPSy to me, as it's all overloads/generics, but I have no strong opionion on this. Thanks for working on this! Greetings, Janneke --=20 Janneke Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE https://AvatarAcade= my.com