True. OK, given that it’ll be mostly library implementers (as in “smart people”) who will use this mechanism, nicer surface syntax might not be necessary (and could even be provided by yet another library).
On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:06 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > >> 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. > > I think a more precise statement of what you dislike is using double dispatch > in a single dispatch language to simulate multi-methods. "double dispatch" > is the simulation technique rather than what is being simularted. > > Interestingly, it is my understanding (but I don't have any references) that > at least some Common Lisp implementations internally use double dispatch > (actually chained, single dispatch to implement multiple method dispatch > > Allen > > > -- 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
