From: Andrew L. M. Shalit
Subject: Re: Static v. Dynamic Class Structure
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1989 22:09:36 +0000
Message-ID: <ALMS.89Oct23180936@brazil.cambridge.apple.com>

In article <··················@buckwheat.sps.mot.com> ····@buckwheat.sps.mot.com (Chris Hume) writes:


   A shortcoming current Object Oriented Languages seem to have,
   is that they all seem to assume a single and more or less static
   class structure with respect to existing instances.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet.  CLOS doesn't
assume a static system.  Classes can be redefined, and there
is a full protocol for updating existing instances.  This is
possible because object system support exists at run time, not
just at compile time.

   -andrew

From: Jeff Hallett x5163
Subject: Re: Static v. Dynamic Class Structure
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1989 15:28:58 +0000
Message-ID: <1292@mrsvr.UUCP>

In article <··················@brazil.cambridge.apple.com> ····@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) writes:
>
>I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet.  CLOS doesn't
>assume a static system.  Classes can be redefined, and there
>is a full protocol for updating existing instances.  This is
>possible because object system support exists at run time, not
>just at compile time.


I cross-post this because people may  be able to  answer the follow-up
that are on different groups.

I am  interested  in seeing CLOS   over  on  the Mac  under (formerly)
Allegro  Common Lisp.  I am under  the  impression that CLOS itself is
freely  distributed (various implementations cost  $, but CLOS itself,
like TeX, is free).  

Has anyone had any luck porting CLOS to the Mac and possibly expanding
the class database to include ToolBox elements (windows, menus, etc)?

Thanks


--
	     Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering
      GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414, Milwaukee, WI  53201
	    (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL -  ·······@gemed.ge.com
     "Your logic was impeccable Captain. We are in grave danger."