Re: Swindle question & bug report

[Noel Welsh <noelwelsh@yahoo.com>]

--- Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
> First a comment: Swindle is not part of the stuff
> from Rice, so I
> guess it wouldn't be too appropriate to discuss it
> on this list.

I disagree - I think it a very useful add-on to PLT
Scheme and others may be interested in the discussion,
so I'll discuss it on the list unless others object.

> > Can Swindle dispatch on MzScheme's structures?
> 
> No.  I thought about making that possible, but it's
> throwing work for
> a rare situation - mixing Swindle stuff with
> MzScheme structures (and
> objects).

Well, it depends on what the see as Swindle's use.  If
you want to build wholly Swindle programs then it
isn't much use, but I see more value in Swindle's
ability to dispatch on type (i.e. generic functions)
than in the ability to (essentially) define a new type
of structure.   For a start, dispatching on structures
& PLT classes makes the system more unified -
everything is an object.  Having generic functions as
a core part of PLT Scheme would be really useful - one
could overload display and write for instance, and the
whole system could be more reflective.  My intended
use of Swindle is dispatching on structure type (in
this case Zodiac structures).

Unfortunately the whole Swindle packages breaks PLT
Scheme a bit - the bug I reported and the loss of the
buttons (Spidey, syntax highlighting) being two
obvious problems.

FWIW, I don't see a conflict between the existing PLT
Scheme objects and CLOS ala Swindle.  The former are
more suited to the typical 'islands of state' OO
model, whilst the latter seem more appropriate for the
'transformation of inputs' functional style.

cya,
Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/