[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1
From: |
Keisuke Nishida |
Subject: |
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1 |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:10:02 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/21.0.96 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At 07 Feb 2001 12:44:55 +0200,
Michael Livshin wrote:
>
> > In the future, I guess smobs and classes should be defined in
> > association with specific modules. That way, we can determine
> > each smob and class by a name like "guile::core::type::keyword".
>
> hmm. Guile is, more or less, a Scheme implementation ;). the
> Schemey way is to have names only for _bindings_, not objects.
Why don't you consider the above name to be a _binding_, then? :)
Looking up a smob type by name is just a binding, isn't it?
Kei
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, (continued)
- Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/07
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1,
Keisuke Nishida <=
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/19
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/02/04