Kevin J. Lang and Barak A. Pearlmutter. Oaklisp: an object-oriented dialect of scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation: An International Journal, 1(1):39-51, May 1988.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....using a Sum datatype. The de nition of values are even more obscure, using a subtype typeclass in place of the type class mechanism itself. More fundamentally, Lang and Pearlmutter, in presenting their object system, Oaklisp, discuss the language virtue of uniformity of temporal semantics [8]. By this, they mean that anything that can be done at compile time ought to be doable at run time as well. A uniform temporal semantics leads to a simpler language design, since dependen cies of compile time constructs on run time data need not be speci cally prohibited. For the same reason, it ....

....it can still be taken advantage of by a good compiler. Section 2 presents the interface to the object system. Section 3 demonstrates the use of the object system in writing modular interpreters. Section 4 concludes. 2 The Object System Interface The object system we use is similar to Oaklisp [8], which prided itself on providing the full functionality of an object oriented language while remaining true to Scheme s philosophy. We go even further in both areas. Oaklisp provided multiple inheritance, rst class types and single dispatch generic functions, along with a metaclass facility. We ....

Kevin J. Lang and Barak A. Pearlmutter. Oaklisp: an object-oriented dialect of scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation: An International Journal, 1(1):39-51, May 1988.

....can be found in the EuLisp rationale. EuLisp breaks with LISP tradition in describing all its types (in fact, classes) in terms of an object system. This is called The EuLisp Object System, or TELOS. TELOS incorporates elements of the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) 2] ObjVLisp [7] Oaklisp [9], MicroCeyx [5] and MCS [3] 1.1. Language Structure The EuLisp definition comprises the following items: Level 0 comprises all the level 0 functions, macros and special forms, which is this text minus Annex B. The object system can be extended by user defined structure classes, and generic ....

Lang, K.J. and Pearlmutter, B.A. Oaklisp: An Object-Oriented Dialect of Scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 1, 1 (June 1988) 39--51.

....EULISP breaks with LISP tradition in describing all its types (in fact, classes) in terms of an object system. This is called The EULISP Object System, or TEO Sigma. TEO Sigma incorporates elements of the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) Bobrow et al. 1988] ObjVLisp [Cointe, 1987] Oaklisp [Lang Pearlmutter, 1988], and MicroCeyx [Chailloux et al., 1987] The greatest debt of TEO Sigma is to CLOS, from which it takes the ideas of generic functions and multi methods. In addition, most of the terminology, the names and format of the user level macros, and the names of many of the functions in the internal ....

Lang K.J. & Pearlmutter B.A., Oaklisp: An Object-Oriented Dialect of Scheme, Lisp and Symbolic Computation, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1988, pp39-51, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

....[22] captures many of the same ideas as units. Scheme can also support objectoriented programming by simulating objects with procedures and classes with higher order procedures [37] Several object oriented extensions for Scheme have been developed [2, 34] including some that support mixins [25, 33]. 5 However, none of these systems provide complete languages for both modular and object oriented programming. 8 Conclusion Units and mixins promote a synergistic integration of modular and object oriented programming techniques. The combination succeeds due to a consistent separation of ....

Lang, K. J. and B. A. Pearlmutter. Oaklisp: an objectoriented dialect of Scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation: An International Journal, 1(1):39--51, May 1988.

....benchmark against the Lisp implementation and existing computer algebra systems. For the first implementation there are several possible Lisp dialects to choose from. The most promising ones are Common Lisp and Scheme, or their objectoriented counterparts CLOS ( Bobrow et al. 1988] and Oaklisp ([Lang, Pearlmutter 1988]) The advantage of Common Lisp is its widespread availability; the advantage of Scheme, on the other hand, is that there exists a highly optimizing compiler (see [Kranz 1988] The actual choice of a Lisp dialect will depend on the availability of good compilers. Currently, using Scheme seems to ....

Lang, K.J., Pearlmutter, B.A., 1988: Oaklisp: An Object-Oriented Dialect of Scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 39--51.

....with method inheritance, as in CLOS [18] Another constraint posed by lexical instance variables is that an object s method, which is a procedure, must be defined within the lexical scope of the object s instance variables in order for it to gain access to the instance variables. Oaklisp [11] removes the constraint by resorting to the add method special form (add method (op (type . inst vars) args) body) where inst vars is the list of instance variables of the class type that are accessible to the method s body. The addition of quasi static scoping, however, provides a simple ....

K. J. Lang and B. A. Pearlmutter. Oaklisp: An objectoriented dialect of Scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 1(1):39--51, 1988.

No context found.

Lang, K.J. and Pearlmutter, B.A. Oaklisp: An Object-Oriented Dialect of Scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 1, 1 (June 1988) 39--51.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC