[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unified name properties
From: |
Keisuke Nishida |
Subject: |
Re: Unified name properties |
Date: |
01 Oct 2000 11:05:39 -0400 |
User-agent: |
T-gnus/6.14.4 (based on Gnus v5.8.6) (revision 02) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) Chao/1.14.0 (Momoyama) Emacs/20.7 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/4.1 (AOI) |
Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> > But, again, whether a name property makes sense or not seems to be a
> > matter of taste. I just happen to dislike it :-)
>
> Yeah, right. I think the easiest thing to do right now, and I don't
> think it is actually wrong to do it.
>
> How should we proceed then?
How about creating a C function scm_object_name and a Scheme procedure
object-name, and using them for every name request? It doesn't matter
how to implement it now. We can modify it later on.
But if we want to print a name like #<procedure foobie in adder>, as
Jim says, we cannot simply use object-name. Probably it is done by
defining a method `write' for procedures once GOOPS is integrated.
-- Kei
- Re: Unified name properties, Marius Vollmer, 2000/10/01
- Re: Unified name properties,
Keisuke Nishida <=
- Re: Unified name properties, Marius Vollmer, 2000/10/02
- Re: Unified name properties, Dirk Herrmann, 2000/10/05
- Re: Unified name properties, Keisuke Nishida, 2000/10/05
- Re: Unified name properties, Marius Vollmer, 2000/10/10
- Re: Unified name properties, Dirk Herrmann, 2000/10/11
- Re: Unified name properties, Keisuke Nishida, 2000/10/11
Re: Unified name properties, Marius Vollmer, 2000/10/01