Christopher Smith wrote:
Yeah yeah. Dynamic polymorphic dispatch. Better? :-)
I think the term for CLOS is "generic dispatch",
Generic dispatch is one kind of dynamic polymorphic dispatch, yes.
I'm not entirely sure it need be dynamic, but I haven't seen
a language with purely static polymorphic dispatch and I'm having a hard
time imagining one.
It's called "overloading." :-) Pretty much every language supports it,
at least for + and * and such.
You can create such an object with boost::bind.
Wow. Funky.
I'm not really sure how much message dispatch should be associated with
OO. Yes, Smalltalk does it, but Smalltalk does a lot of things, and not
all them are associated with OO.
I don't think it's necessary. I was just clarifying what most writers
mean by the term, and hence why I had used it incorrectly.
While programmers tend to hate verbosity (myself included), there is a
*lot* to be said for its benefits in making code easy to
read/understand, easy to discern what was intended in the case of an
error and therefore easy to debug.
Yep. I've been looking at Haskell lately, and tho it's statically
strongly typed, it's hard as heck for me to read sometimes because of
many the types being implicit. When you see a line like
x = f y
and you can't tell what's the operator, what's the function call, and
whether x winds up as a function, a value, or an operator that accepts
operators as arguments, I find it rough to follow.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
