Re: simple method dispatch question

• To: Lieven Marchand <mal@bewoner.dma.be>
• Subject: Re: simple method dispatch question
• From: P T Withington <ptw@callitrope.com>
• Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:41:54 -0500
• CC: <info-dylan@ai.mit.edu>
• In-Reply-To: <m3n1f6d9g2.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
• Organization: Callitrope
• Sender: owner-info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022

Lieven Marchand mal@bewoner.dma.be on  2000-11-11 09:15 wrote:

> CLOS has retained the PROGN method combination.

Thanks for the clarification.  It has been a while since I used CLOS.

> Are there any papers available on how much use Dylan compilers can
> make of this extra leeway in comparison to CLOS? I know of the work of
> the Cecil people and of Baker's CLOStrophobia paper.

I don't know of any.  I do know that a design goal of Dylan was not to pay
for features you don't use, but not to achieve that goal by simply leaving
out all features ;-).  I also recall that the Functional Objects (nee
Harlequin) Dylan has a MOP internally that is used to achieve some
efficiencies, but which is not exposed (but then, neither is CLOS).

• Re: simple method dispatch question
• From: Lieven Marchand <mal@bewoner.dma.be>

• Prev: Re: simple method dispatch question
• Next: Re: simple method dispatch question
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread