davis@barbes.ilog.fr (Harley Davis) (02/13/91)
In article <JINX.91Feb12132111@chamarti.ai.mit.edu> jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas) writes:
like scheme seem much "cleaner" and "nicer". But even scheme lacks the
kind of type support available in the modula/pascal/oberon
language family, or in languages like ML.
Your statement seems to imply that there is consensus that such type
systems are desirable. Some of us in the Scheme community, and I bet
many in the Lisp community, view such type systems as a step
backwards, not forwards.
What problem do the Scheme people have with the CL type system? Is it
the complex type combination language, CLOS, some basic issue
concerning extensible types, or something else?
-- Harley
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nom: Harley Davis ILOG S.A.
net: davis@ilog.fr 2 Avenue Gallie'ni, BP 85
tel: (33 1) 46 63 66 66 94253 Gentilly Cedex, France