CMUCL and MOP?

From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: CMUCL and MOP?
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:54:04 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA41926.B98E676C@nyc.rr.com>

I see CMUCL CLOS is based on PCL, and I saw a reference implying PCL had
pretty good MOP support... true that? Can anyone compare PCL with ACL's
MOP support, which I have had good luck with for the most part.

thx

ken

Re: CMUCL and MOP? Tim Bradshaw
Re: CMUCL and MOP? Kenny Tilton
Re: CMUCL and MOP? David Bakhash

From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CMUCL and MOP?
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 01:27:21 +0000
Message-ID: <ey3zoezofeu.fsf@cley.com>

* Kenny Tilton wrote:
> I see CMUCL CLOS is based on PCL, and I saw a reference implying PCL had
> pretty good MOP support... true that? Can anyone compare PCL with ACL's
> MOP support, which I have had good luck with for the most part.

I think the main problem with CMUCL and the MOP, or in fact with CMUCL
and CLOS in general, is that CLOS isn't really integrated into CMUCL
tightly enough.  So you find in CMUCL that CL:STANDARD-CLASS is not
quite PCL::STANDARD-CLASS, and curious things happen if you get
confused about it, and other things of that nature.

I think that, as far as it goes, PCL's MOP is pretty OK -- I suspect
there are divergences from AMOP, but AMOP probably has divergences
from what is sanely implementable, so ...  Certainly, once I've
overcome the integration issues it's done what I want, although I've
never tried to to do very much of the low-level intercession things
(which aren't that portable in any case).  I'm sure ACL's is better
though, certainly it was much less painful to use for me.

As far as I can see (I'm not very familiar with CMUCL's
implementation) things are getting better in terms of integration as
well, which is nice!

--tim

From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CMUCL and MOP?
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 01:46:53 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA44186.4401E358@nyc.rr.com>

OK, that was dumb, I am interested in CMUCL, so it is their MOP support
which interests me. :)

kt

Kenny Tilton wrote:
> 
> I see CMUCL CLOS is based on PCL, and I saw a reference implying PCL had
> pretty good MOP support... true that? Can anyone compare PCL with ACL's
> MOP support, which I have had good luck with for the most part.
> 
> thx
> 
> ken

From: David Bakhash
Subject: Re: CMUCL and MOP?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:10:53 +0000
Message-ID: <m3y9uiucse.fsf@alum.mit.edu>

Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:

> I see CMUCL CLOS is based on PCL, and I saw a reference implying PCL
> had pretty good MOP support... true that? Can anyone compare PCL
> with ACL's MOP support, which I have had good luck with for the most
> part.

I've used CLOS with CMUCL, but not MOP (neither directly or
indirectly, as far as I know).  I've used it with ACL, and it works
great.  I've used it extensively with LispWorks, and it also works
very well, though I don't know how it would compare with ACL.  I know
nothing of MCL.

I've _heard_ from people on this newsgroup that CMUCL's MOP support is 
very slow, if you use MOP extensively.

dave