From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Panicz Maciej Godek Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A couple of questions about goops method parameters Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 23:08:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1409905923.9245.5.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <871trpridm.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <871trpkdbf.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409951345 16019 80.91.229.3 (5 Sep 2014 21:09:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 21:09:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Carlos Pita , David Thompson , "guile-user@gnu.org" To: Marko Rauhamaa Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 05 23:08:58 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 1XQ0kZ-0006bY-LL for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 23:08:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60191 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0kZ-0001cp-3i for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:08:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0kP-0001ci-22 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:08:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0kO-00073D-76 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:08:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-vc0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c03::231]:50763) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ0kO-000730-24 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:08:44 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hq11so12997512vcb.36 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:08:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zwZtlF/Yz+qGKxtQ5J89tyaxM57yyaoxfy6+TiZsLGo=; b=EHek+5oKod7BiN6BvrXQgIFuxSh61sXQKh6NZb3/v2ji3n5lAqYhjGyUnMJEQoSUYB 49Kn+1pKAepsTQwqdzpn5YM6B0mw0eQA4TsBZDx6bltz/40lOqsykD//bh4lysVlNXCc PjKllcXzcZlcIICQOmbeGCj1+RU1EPFCXzURXZbe1O2UyA7hKkFf5tq9nrqa2qlJzVmW jzD/p26RoD9nkPXkBkh4X/s+9nr2xzkMRaJwGT6OUOt7SetmnQynacPqbsdI54d7zWDZ krGN8czFkDGCbWSY+xTCPZC16ZsbAi0JnTCv21a6pS096pQ95lx1KjdkUtI9YkPp2D69 S/Og== X-Received: by 10.221.49.133 with SMTP id va5mr3187337vcb.37.1409951323507; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.221.66.79 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:08:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <871trpkdbf.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::231 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:11470 Archived-At: 2014-09-05 22:44 GMT+02:00 Marko Rauhamaa : > 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. I think that (putting side other issues) if one person in this thread claims that srfi-9 is a commonly accepted representation, and another claims that alists are a a commonly accepted representation, then it's a proof that none is 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. Apparently our views on the essence of OOP differ. I perceive an object as an aggregation of properties, and a set of methods I would call an interface. Perhaps to you doing OOP is about defining interfaces, and to me it's more about aggregating properties. I wouldn't say that anyone of us is more right than the other. > 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. I agree that the constructor syntax isn't expressible to handle some very common use cases, and requires to overload the "initialize" method in many trivial situations. But my solution to this problem is to construct OOP framework atop of GOOPS. It might not be the simplest solution, but I find it promising > * 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? I don't think I understand. There is no strong type system, and there's no need to declare object types. The types are mainly for convinience -- to allow you to implement the same interfaces for different objects.