From: ···············@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Replaceable classes?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1116515602.378883.319950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
It sounds like CHANGE-CLASS.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Replaceable classes?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3f3puaF5shdlU1@individual.net>
···············@yahoo.com wrote:
> It sounds like CHANGE-CLASS.

Nope, that's for objects. (i.e., changing the class of an object)

In MOP terms, what they describe is similar to reinitialize-instance 
invoked on class metaobjects, or from a user's perspective, simply 
changing the defclass form of an existing class.

The Microsoft patent sounds as if existing objects created with the 
previous definition of a class are not affected. (Ah, and it seems to be 
a compile-time-only feature...) That would be a difference to CLOS: When 
you change the definition of a class in CLOS, all existing objects are 
updated to reflect the new class definition.

IANAL, so I don't know whether this counts as prior art. But I prefer 
the CLOS version. (of course... ;)


Pascal

-- 
2nd European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
July 26 - Glasgow, Scotland - co-located with ECOOP 2005
http://lisp-ecoop05.bknr.net/