Misc ideas & comments

Matthias Hoelzl tc tc@gauss.muc.de
31 Mar 1998 22:19:23 +0200

strandh@cs.utexas.edu writes:

> > This is my impression as well.  I looked into the RScheme sources
> > because I was looking for a Scheme system to which I could add a nice
> > MOP based object system.  In RScheme this is somewhat tedious to do
> > because you have to update the Scheme code and quite a lot of
> > hand-written C as well.  
> I am not sure what you mean here.  RScheme already has an object
> system.  Why was it necessary to update C code to add an object
> system?  Would it have been easier in some other system?

Well, my primary interest is not in the object system per se, but
rather in meta object protocols and aspect oriented programming.  I
don't have the RScheme source code available right now, but if I
remember correctly most of the generic function invocation protocol is
in hand-coded C.  This is of course a perfectly valid decisions for
building a Scheme system that offers reasonable performance without
doing global optimizations.

One Scheme compiler that is IMHO somewhat easier to modify in this
regard is the bigloo compiler, but since I am currently trying to find
out how exactly the MOP/Aspect system should look like, I have
switched to a (mostly) portable solution based on tiny-clos for the

> > furthermore linking modules compiled with rsc v0.7.2
> > to the main executable fails on my Linux/glibc system.
> This should be reported as a bug.  

True.  I'll try it again and send you the error messages.