[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Aside about encapsulations
- To: Handerson@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
- Subject: Re: Aside about encapsulations
- From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 1984 21:49:00 -0000
- Cc: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA, COMMON-LISP%SU-AI@SU-SCORE.ARPA, HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA, Moon@SCRC-RIVERSIDE.ARPA, Rem%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Wholey@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Steven <Handerson@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>'s message of Fri, 5 Oct 84 13:35 EDT
Sounds quite interesting; two questions:
1) does your encapsulation notion bear any resemblence to the one
described in the LispMachineMaunal?
2) what do *you* mean by traceing any setfable "location"? I can
imagine tracing being applicable to SETF instances; and there are the
"good old days" of memory address traps wherein one could invoke a
function whenever any access is made to a specific address. Finally, I
might mention that "active values" is at the core of LOOPS, and there is
a minimal syntax in LOOPS for specifying "auditing" (similar to
traceing) a particular variable, or a particular record slot. "Active
values" nest in a way reminiscent of the way that encapsulations work in
the Lisp Machine.
-- JonL --