Re: A question (confusion) about closure

Didier Verna <didier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> pjb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
>
>>>   Right. Not all parts would necessarily benefit from object
>>> orientation, but some definitely would. What's more (at least in the
>>> case of XEmacs), some parts already *are* object-oriented; just not
>>> in an OO language which is a real PITA. Refactoring those parts with
>>> a more modern tool underneath would not be difficult, because the
>>> design is already there.
>
>    Note that here I was talking about the C layer mostly.

Ah, sorry, I didn't realize. Indeed, if XEmacs is written at 85% in C,
it would be hard to do anything with it...


>> Do Xemacs hackers need to learn about defmacro?
>
>   [ That's XEmacs ] defwhat ?

However, there are also object systems written for C.

Objective-C is an obvious one.

COS another with some influences from Objective-C and some from CLOS:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cos


Good luck ;-)
-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__