ALU capability (was Re: [E-Lang] Authority -- what is its
Mark S. Miller
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:30:49 -0700
Well, I've read your paper, and I don't see what I'm supposed to conclude
At the beginning, you make a clear statement of the problem. You then show
why the problem is hard to solve in Scheme itself, and hard to solve by
making small changes to Scheme. I kept thinking to myself "But what about
his own T language? -- that would seem to be an approach that might keep
upwards compatibility while escaping the other problems." E's treatment of
the "run" message, in order to enable function-like object behavior, is
based on a similar construct in Joule, which is based on T.
Finally, on page 10 you get to the subject we are wrestling with, of true
object orientedness. (But even this is still answering a different
question: How to rescue Scheme from its (bad, IMO) decision not to be oo,
but still preserve compatibility?) But just as you seem to be warming up to
this new subject, the paper is over.
What did I miss?