On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 03:46 PM, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
I would say that - unless I am dead wrong, the OO languages such as SmalltalkYes, normally only the receiver and "message identifier" matters. In languages like Java, where the type of the other arguments is considered, this is handled statically.
do not dispatch on dynamic types of a value. The receiver is known, so its vir.
f. table (belonging to the receiver's class) is known as well, the dispatching
is based on the *message identifiers* independently of subsidiary arguments.
For languages like Smalltalk, Objective-C, etc, all that you know at compile time is that the receiver is an object. You don't know what kind of object. Thus you cannot use a static dispatch style or vtables as you would in a language like C++. Even when the type is bounded, vtables are not enough because of "categories" and "method packages" that add methods to classes at run time.
Dispatch is done on the "target" (receiver) and "selector" (message identifier).
So if you consider an expression like:
target_expr doSomething:arg_expr
then you should break that up into
v = target_expr
f = lookup_method(v, "doSomething:")
f(v, "doSomething:", argexpr).
You dispatch on the dynamic type of the target (it's class) and on the dynamic state of its method tables. Note that you cannot assume that the receiver has a method that matches the selector!
Dynamic method lookup is a fairly complicated and expensive process, and it's a barrier to many optimizations. This can be mitigated by program analysis and specialization or similar techniques; dynamic dispatch and the surrounding problems are getting fairly well researched.
Languages with dynamic dispatch:
* Brad J Cox, Object oriented programming: an evolutionary approach, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1986
* Apple Computer, Inc., The Objective-C Programming Language, 2002.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Cocoa/ObjectiveC/index.html
* Pieter J. Schoenmaker, Supporting the Evolution of Software, Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, July 1, 1999.
Some research:
* Zoran Budimlic, Ken Kennedy, and Jeff Piper, The cost of being object-oriented: A preliminary study, Scientific Computing 7(2), 1999
* David Detlefs and Ole Agesen, Inlining of Virtual Methods, Proc. of 13th ECOOP
* A Diwan. Understanding and improving the performance of modern programming
languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 1997
* Peeter Laud, Analysis for Object Inlining in Java; http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/laud01analysis.html
* Ole Agesen and Jens Palsberg and Michael I. Schwartzbach, Type Inference of {SELF}: Analysis of Objects with Dynamic and Multiple Inheritance, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/agesen93type.html
Only after that - perhaps - some "reversions", message propagation depending onWell, "self" and the "selector" is usually an argument to the method, but otherwise I agree.
the arg(s) value(s), etc. may take place, but all this is irrelevant...
Regards,
John Hornkvist
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
