I never liked simulating double dispatch in a single dispatch language and once I came in contact with Common Lisp, I found out why: For some problems, multiple dispatch and generic functions (in CL terminology) are a better fit, conceptually.
The obvious contra argument is that it would add a lot of new complexity, possibly too much of it. On the plus side, it would provide a very elegant solution for operator overloading. If one is to support multiple dispatch at all, it should probably be done in conjunction with type guards, resulting in a Common-Lisp-like solution (where I always liked that it was an elegant compromise between more static languages such as Java and more dynamic languages such as JavaScript). On Mar 27, 2012, at 3:23 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > As a followup, I've written a strawman[1] that explains how we could specify > and implement operator overloading that supports an open-ended set of value > types. I look at this as an adjunct to Dave's proposal that suggests that > the coercion/promotion rules should be pushed out of the actual operator > semantics and placed into an extensible set of methods. > > [1] > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:operator_overloading_with_double_dispatch > > > Allen > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
