Madhu <enometh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> [Just an experience re****t, YMMV]
>
> * Albert Krewinkel <fwuve1o62ho.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :
> Wrote on Thu, 08 May 2008 21:05:07 +0200:
>
> | Now instead of having to write all disk-streams following the above
> | scheme by hand, I'd like to be able to do
> |
> | (define-cross-product-cl***** stream-class-graph disk)
>
> I have more than once felt I needed something like this. However,
> invariably I've ended up abandoning defining cl***** via ENSURE-CLASS
> mechanisms, preferring instead the explicit DEFCLASS definitions in a
> static file [which the editor can jump to].
Kind of true. But slime is still helpfull, as it puts me to the
class-generating macro call, which I can expand easily. That's only one
step more than using nothing but defclass. You are probably aware of
this, so, uhm, if it's more than personal taste, the reason is hidden
somewhere in the thread. I will have to examine it closer.
> The rules of my
> `define-cross-product' equivalent however turned out to be useful to
> both generate the boiler plate which generated the file initially (few
> iterations before settling on class names) and also to write tests to
> check the class structure of the [semi automatically generated] cl*****.
>
> However in all my cases, the class relations were fairly static, I
> suspect they are in your case too. For the other case, see
>
> See the CLL thread from last October 2007
>
<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/78ef4a5fcd6a1661/e95e42b3307c91cd?#e95e42b3307c91cd>
Cool, thanks! I didn't read all what's there yet, but it looks very
much like the stuff I looked for.
Thanks also to Rainer Joswig for pointing out the difference between
multiple inheritance and mixins. I was sloppy there.
|
