Thanks, that answered the question. On Jan 9, 2008 1:38 PM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Eric Normand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Bind and lookup both select the method to use based on the "method > > selector", which is basically the message name. Bind is a fixed point > > in the language, and lookup is not. However, it is inside of bind > > that method selection is decided, ie, that a method is selected based > > on the name of the message. > > This quote from Ian, written to this list on 2007-11-02, in a thread > called "Re: [fonc] Comment on LtU" may answer your question: > > Ian Piumarta writes: > > The object model is the simplest that could be used to bootstrap some > > of the ideas. Limiting the dispatch to discriminating on the first > > argument is a severe limitation that has to be dealt with soon (it's > > already causing problems). Fixing this is part of a larger > > generalisation and unification of the roles of object, message name, > > and function that is planned but not yet implemented. In particular, > > message/function names and selectors should be distinct objects -- > > with selectors and types(/classes/whatever) having equal influence in > > determining and encapsulating behaviour. Selectors will be involved > > in determining the code emitted for their own call sites, subsuming > > the generic function-like behaviour you mention, bringing message > > dispatch and function application together as a single operation with > > no limits to the complexity of binding, dispatch and application > > mechanisms involved. > > Hope that helps, > > -- > Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ > http://michael.fig.org/ \// > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
