On 04-Nov-1998, Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some languages have a renaming mechanism, which allows
> to retain old functions under the names different than
> the original ones. This is not the same as "hiding".
No, but you can simulate it very easily using "hid
On 04-Nov-1998, Michael Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "S.D.Mechveliani" wrote:
> >
> When considering changes to a language, I think one needs to carefully
> measure the difference between convenience and necessity/correctness. I
> think everyone will agree that ad hoc polymorphism (aka over
>Perhaps a "better" solution than ad hoc polymorphism would be to provide
>a more convenient namespace syntax. Am I mistaken in thinking that
>overloading, for overloading's sake, isn't what is wanted; what is
>wanted is to be able to easily differentiate between two functions that
>happen to
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Michael Hobbs wrote:
>
> When considering changes to a language, I think one needs to carefully
> measure the difference between convenience and necessity/correctness. I
> think everyone will agree that ad hoc polymorphism (aka overloading) is
> very _convenient_ but I don'
"S.D.Mechveliani" wrote:
>
> To
>
> >> I am writing code that would like to use the word "product" as a field
> >> selector for a Product (object representing something for sale).
> >> Unfortunately, it can't easily use "product" because the prelude claims
> >> the word for multiplication.
>
>
