From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marko Rauhamaa Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A couple of questions about goops method parameters Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 23:44:04 +0300 Message-ID: <871trpkdbf.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> References: <1409905923.9245.5.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <871trpridm.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409949900 30994 80.91.229.3 (5 Sep 2014 20:45:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 20:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Carlos Pita , David Thompson , "guile-user@gnu.org" To: Panicz Maciej Godek Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 05 22:44:53 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0NI-0006Jx-KX for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 22:44:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60153 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0NI-0007VZ-6I for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:44:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42746) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0N3-0007V7-Kf for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:44:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0Mx-0008ML-GW for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:44:37 -0400 Original-Received: from pacujo.net ([83.150.83.132]:37921) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0Mx-0008JC-8O for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:44:31 -0400 Original-Received: from elektro.pacujo.net (192.168.1.200) by elektro.pacujo.net; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 23:44:04 +0300 Original-Received: by elektro.pacujo.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 23:44:04 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Panicz Maciej Godek's message of "Fri, 5 Sep 2014 22:10:26 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 83.150.83.132 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:11467 Archived-At: Panicz Maciej Godek : > I think that it is a big problem of Scheme, that it does not have any > noncontroversial and commonly accepted way for creating named tuples. That's what alists are. They may not be the most beautiful way to represent data as S expressions but they sure are noncontroversial and commonly accepted. However, objects, in my opinion, are the antithesis of tuples. Objects are the focal points of methods. Whether the black box contains data and in what form is none of the rest of the world's concern. IMO, GOOPS has two main flaws: * It brings an object's data slots to the fore while brushing methods aside. The object constructor syntax is more or less directly tied to the data slots. * It introduces a very strong, almost Linnaean, type system to Scheme, where it seems out of place. I see no principal reason for such classification. I don't declare my numbers in Scheme; why should I declare my object types? Marko