Re: [GOOPS] make class-name a generic?

[Andreas Rottmann]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> The situation is that we have two distinct functions, class-name of
> GOOPS, which takes a class object and returns its name, and class-name
> of <simple-type>, which takes a <simple-type> object and returns the
> name of the class guile-gobject is supposed to create.  The problem is
> that of a name clash---both distinct functions are most suitably named
> "class-name".
>
> What you are asking for is to turn the GOOPS class-name getter into a
> generic function so that you can distribute your getter method through
> that function via the (oop goops) public interface to other modules.
>
Exactly.

> While that is certainly possible, I think it's generally a better idea
> to give distinct functions distinct names.  What about type-name,
> scm-type-name or goops-class-name?
>
Well, types already have name in the context of a wrapset. I'm
considering making this the class-name if an additional has-class
attribute is set to #t and thus working around the issue, although
that approach is less flexible.

> I *do* sympathize with your criticism about name-space pollution.
> Maybe a remedy would be to separate out bindings having to do with
> GOOPS reflection into a (oop goops reflection) interface?
>
I think this is a good idea.

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

The best way to accelerate a Windows machine is at 9.81 m/s^2