Re: Turning Gnus groups into real objects

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:

> My original long-term plan was to replace the nnoo machinery with Emacs'
> built-in object stuff: defvoo would become object slots, and deffoo
> would become generic functions. Would this be a bad idea for the same
> reason? That would also be a bummer, but at the same time save me a lot
> of work :)

The reason the voo stuff is like it is is for backwards-compatibility
with out-of-tree backends.  If we want to keep that, then rewriting to
use a proper object system would require two pairs of interface
functions.

But I think rewriting that stuff is a more self-contained operation
because the nn* interface at least is defined as an interface (which the
group/info structures are not).  So I think that's a much better thing
to be rewritten.

I.e., first define what the interface should be, then rewrite the
backends, one by one, to use that new and better interface.  People who
have customisations to the code will find that their customisations
don't work in the new versions, but that's OK, I think.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no