Re: [Chicken-users] coops

[Felix]

From: Stephen Eilert <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:50:32 -0300

> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Felix
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Stephen Eilert <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
>> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:32:33 -0300
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Sometimes the simplest solution are the hardest to see. I do not have to 
>>>> use
>>>> coops-primitive-objects, I can define my own hierarchie of primitive
>>>> objects.
>>>
>>> That is my experience as well. Every time I import
>>> coops-primitive-objects, I end up removing it some time later.
>>
>> After all the work I put into it? My heart bleeds ...
> 
> I've yet to define generic methods on, say, continuations or threads.
> I assume coops-primitive-objects will be much more useful for those.
> The issue is not with coops-primitive-objects. Instead, as a program
> progresses it is sometimes useful to redefine old functions and have
> them accept more 'specialized' objects.
> 
> Maybe that's just me.
> 

I was just kidding, really. I don't mind at all.
Thanks for taking me seriously. Happens not too often. ;-)


cheers,
felix