adler@aiag.enet.dec.com (07/26/90)
Does anyone know the current status of the CLOS metaobject protocol within the X3J13 committee? We have heard that it was rejected, but it is included in the CLOS implementations in Lucid Common Lisp and TI's Explorer Common Lisp. Mark Adler AI Applications DEC (508) 490-9174 adler@aiag.enet.dec.com
pierson@encore.com (Dan L. Pierson) (07/27/90)
In article <13918@shlump.nac.dec.com> adler@aiag.enet.dec.com writes: > Does anyone know the current status of the CLOS metaobject protocol > within the X3J13 committee? We have heard that it was rejected, but > it is included in the CLOS implementations in Lucid Common Lisp and > TI's Explorer Common Lisp. It was not rejected; the CLOS designers decided that they could not produce a completely satisfactory spec in time for the X3J13 draft and withdrew their intention to standardise that part of CLOS at this time. This was formally announced at the January 1989 meeting in Kauai. Since PCL is based on the metaobject protocol (or visa-versa :-)), most PCL-based CLOS implementations will include at least a varient of the same protocol. TI's implementation is not PCL-based, but it's (prime?) author was a member of the CLOS subcommittee. -- dan In real life: Dan Pierson, Encore Computer Corporation, Research UUCP: {talcott,linus,necis,decvax}!encore!pierson Internet: pierson@encore.com
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (07/29/90)
In article <13918@shlump.nac.dec.com> adler@aiag.enet.dec.com () writes: >Does anyone know the current status of the CLOS metaobject >protocol within the X3J13 committee? We have heard that it >was rejected, but it is included in the CLOS implementations >in Lucid Common Lisp and TI's Explorer Common Lisp. The metaobject protocol couldn't have been "rejected", since it was never proposed for adoption. The designers still haven't finished designing it. The only decision regarding the metaobject protocol that X3J13 made was that we didn't need to hold up the standard for it. Many CLOS implementations include *a* metaobject protocol. Most are presumably based on the draft specs that have been published within X3J13 from time to time. If the CLOS developers from those vendors have also been involved in the metaobject protocol design then they may even be more up-to-date than the specs. But there will undoubtedly have to be changes made when the final metaobject protocol is adopted. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (08/14/90)
In article <41105@think.Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >Many CLOS implementations include *a* metaobject protocol. Most are >presumably based on the draft specs that have been published within X3J13 >from time to time. If the CLOS developers from those vendors have also >been involved in the metaobject protocol design then they may even be more >up-to-date than the specs. But there will undoubtedly have to be changes >made when the final metaobject protocol is adopted. You are supposing that it will be finished and then approved. I think there's something to be said for implementations that don't have an elaborate metaobject protocol. I also think there are other things related to Common Lisp (eg, foreign function interface) that it is more important to standardize.