Re: [Chicken-hackers] coops, instance-of?

[John J Foerch]

Kon Lovett <address@hidden> writes:

>> On Jun 13, 2016, at 5:59 AM, John J Foerch <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I was pruning dependencies from a program of mine recently, and noticed
>> that I was using coops-utils only for 'instance-of?'.  The thought
>> occurred to me that as 'instance-of?' is such a common and useful
>> operation, perhaps it belongs in coops proper.  I wanted to at least put
>> the idea out there and see what people thought.  It would be a bit
>> self-serving for me, as I could drop several dependencies from my
>> program if this change were made.
>
> Hum, something get added to coops. Suggest you define the following in your 
> code:
>
> (define-inline (*subclass? c1 c2) (or (eq? c1 c2) (subclass? c1 c2)))
>
> (define (instance-of? x class) (*subclass? (class-of x) class))
>
> subclass? & class-of are part of coops.
>

Alright, thank you for the suggestion.  I am just curious whether others
feel as I do that 'instance-of?' is an important enough operation that
it could be promoted into the coops egg.  Personally I find that I use
it in just about every coops program I write.

Thank you,

--
John Foerch