On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:23:57 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Mason McGill > <mason.b...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> After all this is sorted out, I'd be happy to distill this into a >> subsection for the Julia "Types" documentation about conventions for >> programming with protocols, if you think it belongs there. >> > > For what it's worth, I do think there is need for multiple inheritance and > formal protocols – we just haven't added those features and it's unclear > what they should look like. The fact that generic functions live outside of > types is a very good thing, however, and should not change (although > #1974<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FJuliaLang%2Fjulia%2Fissues%2F1974&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF3fvX2KJKM8u2nsWFjv2colBvdDw>would > allow a more traditional o.o.-like style as well). >
At the moment, though, it doesn't look like the difference between declaring new functions extending existing functions is in the relevant sections of the language documentation (I searched "Methods", "Functions", "Types", and "Modules"). It's hinted to in "Modules/Default top-level definitions and bare modules", but never fully explained. It seems like an important feature to document.
