Subject: Re: ANSI CLISP: strengths vs. weaknesses? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1996/10/11 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> [Martin Cracauer] | For Common Lisp, I'm unsatisfied mostly with CLOS. It's flexibility | greatly damages possible performance improvements and it is not very | integrated with the rest of the system. A dylan-like OO system with | sealing and standard types beeing normal classes would be nicer. it appears that you based your analysis on CLtL2. if you instead read the ANSI specification, what you seem to wish for has become true. for instance, support for international character sets is handled by subclasses of the class `character'. #\Erik -- I could tell you, but then I would have to reboot you.