On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, David Simmons wrote:

[snip]
> How does one meta-object protocol extensibility for supporting different
> types of "namespaces"? 
> 
> I.e., if the answer is not in classes then the design is the result of
> not thinking in pure OO terms and reflection/meta-object protocol.
[snip]

Not dipping too deeply into the debate, I still wish to ask: Doesn't this
rule out prototype (or even wackier) object systems? Purity of OO and
*systmaticisty* of OO and *consistency* of the OO are not *exactly*
congruent (and its not clear that these all have inherent or strong
value).

Or, so it would seem! To me at least.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.