Xref: utzoo comp.object:256 comp.lang.lisp:2283
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!cambridge.apple.com!alms
From: alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Static v. Dynamic Class Structure
Message-ID: <ALMS.89Oct23180936@brazil.cambridge.apple.com>
Date: 23 Oct 89 22:09:36 GMT
References: <HUME.89Oct19162731@buckwheat.sps.mot.com>
Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: hume@buckwheat.sps.mot.com's message of 19 Oct 89 23:27:31 GMT

In article <HUME.89Oct19162731@buckwheat.sps.mot.com> hume@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