On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 19:13 +0000, Eric Rannaud wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:39 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > > Question: would such a method call notation be somewhat disturbing as it > > > suggests the first argument is somehow privileged? > > > > Why does it suggest that? > > In term of (static) dispatch. As it would suggest single dispatch on the > type of a in (a.x [args]), like in C++ or Java, whereas as I understand > it, the resolution of 'x' depends on the types of all its arguments. > > Or maybe I got that part of BitC wrong.
Your understanding of BitC is correct, but given C++ method overloading I think that the resolution of 'x' depends on the types of all the arguments in that case as well. I don't know enough about the "overload by type" issues in Java to have any opinion about that. In any case, it doesn't seem like something to be excessively concerned about. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
