From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: goops and memoization Date: 24 Nov 2002 09:41:59 +0000 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1038132631 22430 80.91.224.249 (24 Nov 2002 10:10:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dirk Herrmann , guile-devel@gnu.org, djurfeldt@nada.kth.se Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18Ftic-0005pK-00 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:10:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18FtjL-0006Ts-00; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 05:11:11 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18Ftiu-0005oE-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 05:10:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18Ftiq-0005f3-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 05:10:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.21] helo=s1.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Ftip-0005bq-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 05:10:39 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns.ossau.uklinux.net (bts-0978.dialup.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.51.210]) by s1.uklinux.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAOAAal22144; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:10:36 GMT Original-Received: from laruns.ossau.uklinux.net.ossau.uklinux.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by laruns.ossau.uklinux.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id 75916DC12C; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:42:00 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 45 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1747 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1747 >>>>> "Mikael" == Mikael Djurfeldt writes: Mikael> [...] because the list of applicable methods is unique per Mikael> application arglist signature and gf application also Mikael> caches per application, not per method definition. I see this now. A case that makes it clear is this: (define-method (foo (arg )) ... (next-method)) (define-class ( )) (define-method (foo (arg )) ...) (foo (make ...)) The first define-method cannot possibly know at definition time that, in the eventual application, next-method should be pointing to the method for super2. There is also this, which doesn't rely on multiple inheritance ... (define-class ) (define-class ()) (define-class ()) (define-method (foo (arg )) ...) (define-method (foo (arg )) ... (next-method)) (foo (make ...)) (define-method (foo (arg )) ... (next-method)) (foo (make ...)) But this one could be handled by fixing up the next-method chain when the method for is defined, so isn't such a compelling example. I'm not proposing to pursue the method-definition-time approach. Out of interest, however, are there any hard cases that don't rely on multiple inheritance? Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel